Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Direct final rule.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Agency) is amending its regulations to reflect the Agency's use of account numbers in place of Social Security numbers as the primary way of identifying participants' TSP accounts as well as the replacement of the Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) with passwords to enter the Account Access portion of the TSP Web site. These changes represent enhanced security measures for the TSP.
This rule is effective October 1, 2007, without further action, unless adverse comment is received by September 21, 2007. If adverse comment is received, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments may be sent to Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The Agency's Fax number is (202) 942-1676.
Megan Graziano on (202) 942-1660.
The Agency administers the TSP, which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).
In order to provide increased account and identity security to its participants, the Agency is amending its privacy, participant statement, and court order and legal process regulations to reflect its use of account numbers in place of Social Security numbers as the primary means of identifying and accessing TSP participants' accounts as well as its use of longer and more complex Web passwords in place of 4-digit PINs for access to the account information on the TSP Web site.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. They will affect only employees of the Federal Government.
I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under § 1532 is not required.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Agency submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this rule in the
Privacy.
Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
Alimony, Claims, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
5 U.S.C. 552a.
(a)
(d)
(a) * * * (1) * * * A written inquiry from a participant must include the
(2) * * * To access these features, the participant may be required to provide identity and account verification information such as his or her account number, PIN, or Web password.
(b)
(c) * * *
(3) * * * These systems may require identity and account verification information such as the participant's account number and Web password or PIN for the Web site and ThriftLine respectively.
5 U.S.C. 8439(c)(1) and (c)(2), 5 U.S.C. 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1).
5 U.S.C. 8435, 8436(b), 8437(e), 8439(a)(3), 8467, 8474(b)(5) and 8474(c)(1).
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) * * *
Example (1). ORDERED: [payee's name, Social Security number (SSN), and address] is awarded $____ from the [civilian or uniformed services] Thrift Savings Plan account of [participant's name, account number or SSN, and address].
Example (2). ORDERED: [payee's name, SSN, and address] is awarded ____% of the [civilian and/or uniformed services] Thrift Savings Plan account[s] of [participant's name, account number or SSN, and address] as of [date].
Example (3). ORDERED: [payee's name, SSN, and address] is awarded [fraction] of the [civilian and/or uniformed services] Thrift Savings Plan account[s] of [participant's name, account number or SSN, and address] as of [date].
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the California Date Administrative Committee (committee) for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop year from $0.95 to $0.75 per hundredweight of dates handled. The committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce its cash reserve levels. The committee locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of dates grown or packed in Riverside County, California. Assessments upon date handlers are used by the committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The crop year begins October 1 and ends September 30. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective September 10, 2007. Comments received by November 6, 2007, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 987, as amended (7 CFR part 987), regulating the handling of dates grown or packed in Riverside County, California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California date handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable dates beginning October 1, 2007, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15) (A) of the Act, any handler subject to an 3 order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the committee for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.95 per to $0.75 per hundredweight of dates.
The California date marketing order provides authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers and handlers of California dates.They are familiar with the committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area, and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and 4 discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2005-06 crop year and subsequent crop years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from crop year to crop year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.
The committee met on June 21, 2007, and unanimously recommended 2007-08 expenditures of $209,182 and an assessment rate of $0.75 per hundredweight of California dates. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $127,485. The assessment rate of $0.75 is $0.20 lower than the rate currently in effect. The committee believes that the assessment rate should be reduced, because the 2006-07 crop was 3 million pounds larger than expected, resulting in $102,652 in accumulated cash reserves available for 2007-08 expenditures. Section 987.72(c) states that the reserve may not exceed 50 percent of the average of expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years. The committee believes the decreased assessment rate will allow it to reduce the amount it holds in cash reserves to $30,115, by September 30, 2008, the end of the 2007-08 crop year. That reserve amount would be within the limits provided in § 987.72(c)
Proceeds from sales of cull dates are deposited in a surplus account for subsequent use by the committee in covering the surplus pool share of the committee's expenses. Handlers may also dispose of cull dates of their own production within their own livestock-feeding operation; otherwise, such cull dates must be shipped or delivered to the committee for sale to non-human food product outlets. Pursuant to § 987.72(b), the committee is authorized to temporarily use funds derived from assessments to defray expenses incurred in disposing of surplus dates. All such expenses are required to be deducted from proceeds obtained by the committee from the disposal of surplus dates. For the 2007-08 crop year, the committee estimated that $2,000 from the surplus account would be needed to refund assessments used in paying committee expenses incurred in disposing of surplus dates.
The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2007-08 crop year include $87,312 for general and administrative programs, $67,870 for promotional programs, $24,000 for marketing and media consulting, $5,000 for moving expenses, and $5,000 for updating marketing materials. The committee also budgeted $20,000 as a contingency reserve for other marketing and promotion projects that it may wish to support later in the year.
By comparison, expenditures for the 2006-07 crop year were $127,485. Major expenditures recommended by the committee included $75,095 for general and administrative expenses, $22,390 for promotional expenses, and $30,000 for date nutritional analysis.
The assessment rate recommended by the committee was derived by adding the incoming reserve funds from the 2006-07 crop year ($105,652), plus the anticipated assessment income from an estimated crop of 19,000,000 million pounds at $0.75 per hundredweight ($142,500) along with the contribution from the surplus program ($2,000), minus the proposed expenses of $209,182, and a refund of excess assessments of $10,855, leaving a reserve of $30,115 to carry into the 2008-09 crop year.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the committee will continue to meet prior to or during each crop year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of committee meetings are available from the committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The committee's 2007-08 budget and those for subsequent crop years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder; are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 124 producers of dates in the production area and approximately 10 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000.
An industry profile shows that four of the 10 handlers (40 percent) had date sales over $6,500,000 and could be considered large handlers by the Small Business Administration. Six of the 10 handlers (60 percent) had date sales of less than $6,500,000 and could be considered small handlers. An estimated 7 producers, or less than 6 percent, of the 124 total producers, would be considered large producers with annual incomes over $750,000. The remaining producers have incomes less than $750,000. The majority of handlers and producers of California dates may be classified as small entities.
This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.95 to $0.75 per hundredweight of dates handled. The committee unanimously recommended 2007-08 expenditures of $209,182 and an assessment rate of $0.75 per hundredweight of dates, which is $0.20 lower than the 2005-06 rate, currently in effect. The committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce its cash reserve levels.
The quantity of assessable dates for the 2007-08 crop year is estimated at 19,000,000 pounds. Thus, the $0.75 rate should provide $142,500 in assessment income and, with reserve funds of $105,652 and the $20,000 contribution from the surplus program, will be adequate to meet the 2007-08 crop year expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2007-08 crop year include $87,312 for general and administrative programs, $67,870 for promotional programs, $24,000 for marketing and media consulting, $5,000 for moving expenses, and $5,000 for updating marketing materials. The committee also budgeted $2,000 as a contingency reserve for other marketing and promotion projects that it may wish to support later in the year.
The committee believes that the assessment rate should be reduced because the unanticipated increased date production during the 2006-07 crop year resulted in a larger carry-in of funds than the committee prefers. The decrease in the assessment rate would allow the committee to reduce its cash reserves to an appropriate level.
The committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2007-08 crop year expenditures of $209,180. Prior to arriving at this budget, the committee considered information from various sources, such as the committee's Marketing Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were an option available to the committee, but given the windfall from the larger-than-expected 2006-07 crop, it was ultimately determined that a $209,180 budget would be most beneficial to the industry. The assessment rate of $0.75 per hundredweight of dates was then derived, based upon the committee's estimates of the incoming reserve, income, and anticipated expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the grower price for the 2007-08 crop year could range between $45 and $50 per hundredweight of dates. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2007-08 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue is approximately 1.67 to 1.5 percent, respectively.
This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California date industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the June 21, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim final rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California date handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Dates, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after October 1, 2007, an assessment rate of $0.75 per hundredweight is established for California dates.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action will remove the Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace at Utica, NY, and amend the Class D and E2 airspace at Rome, NY. This action will also establish Class E5 airspace at Rome, NY. The Oneida County Airport, Utica, NY, is permanently closed and no longer operational, moving aircraft operations to Griffiss Airfield, Rome, NY. The closure necessitates the removal of all Class D and E airspace at Utica, NY. Subsequently, this action amends the Class D and E2 airspace at Rome, NY, published in the
Effective Date: 0901 UTC, October 25, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5586.
On January 1, 2007, the Oneida County Airport, Utica, NY, was permanently closed and airport operations terminated. The closure, therefore, requires the removal of all Class D and E airspace at Utica, NY. Subsequently, operations were moved to Griffiss Airfield, Rome, NY, and Class D and E2 airspace areas were established. An amendment is required to correct errors in the legal description of the Class D and E airspace which has prevented the airspace from being charted. Establishment of Class E5 airspace at Rome, NY, is required to replace the Class E5 airspace being removed at Utica, NY. This rule becomes effective on the date specified in the “Effective Date” section. Since this action eliminates the impact of controlled airspace on users of airspace in the vicinity of Utica, NY, and has no significant impact on the users of the airspace in the vicinity of the Griffiss Airfield, Rome, NY, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are not necessary. Designations for Class D and E Surface Area Airspace, Class E Airspace Areas D Surface Area, and Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005 respectively of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) removes Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace at Utica, NY, amends Class D, and E2 airspace at Rome, NY, and establishes Class E5 airspace at Rome, NY.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,000 feet MSL within an 8.4-mile radius of the Griffiss Airfield. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Within an 8.4-mile radius of the Griffiss Airfield. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.9-mile radius of Griffiss Airfield and within 5 miles each side of the Griffiss Airfield ILS localizer northwest course from the 10.9-mile radius to 15 miles northwest of the airport and within a 26-mile radius of the airport extending clockwise from a 125° bearing to a 200° bearing from the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This action amends the Class E airspace area at Lee's Summit Municipal Airport, Lee's Summit, MO. A review of the legal description revealed an incorrect coordinate describing the Airport Reference Point (ARP) for Lee's Summit Municipal Airport. This action corrects that error.
Send comments on this direct final rule to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-28776/Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2522.
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the direct final rule. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the direct final rule. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-28776/Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
This action amends the Class E airspace area at Lee's Summit Municipal Airport, MO, by correcting the ARP for Lee's Summit Municipal Airport, Lee's Summit, MO. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure that safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority since it contains aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Lee's Summit Municipal Airport, MO.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Lee's Summit Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action established Class E airspace at Lady Lake, FL, to accommodate a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) helicopter point in space approach that has been developed for Lady Lake Hospital. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP.
Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5627.
On July 10, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Lady Lake, FL, (72 FR 37490). This action provides adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations at Lady Lake Hospital, Lady Lake, FL. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Lady Lake, FL, to provide controlled airspace required to support the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) helicopter point in space approach at Lady Lake Hospital.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, navigation (Air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (lat. 28°57′36″ N, long. 81°57′50″ W) serving Lady Lake Hospital.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Live Oak, FL, to accommodate a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) helicopter point in space approach that has been developed for Suwannee Hospital Emergency Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP.
Mark D. Ward, Manager, System support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5627.
On July 10, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Lady Lake, FL, (72 FR 37488). This action provides adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations at Suwannee Hospital Emergency Heliport, Live Oak, FL. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Live Oak, FL, to provide controlled airspace required to support the new Area navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning system (GPS) helicopter point in space approach at Suwannee hospital Emergency Heliport.
The FAA has determined that his proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 fee above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (lat. 30°16′51″ N, long. 83°00′15″ W) serving Suwannee Hospital Emergency Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Winfield, FL, to accommodate a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) helicopter point in space approach that has been developed for Interstate-10 Rest Stop Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP.
0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.
On July 10, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Winfield, FL, (72 FR 37489). This action provides adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations at Interstate-10 Rest Stop Heliport, Winfield, FL. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Winfield, FL, to provide controlled airspace required to support the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) helicopter point in space approach at Interstate-10 Rest Stop Heliport.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (lat. 30°16′15″ N, long. 82°46′20″ W) serving Interstate-10 Rest Stop Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule
This action establishes Class E airspace at Gainesville, FL, to accommodate a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) helicopter point in space approach that has been developed for Shands Hospital. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP.
Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.
On July 10, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Gainesville, FL, (72 FR 37489). This action provides adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations at Shands Hospital, Gainesville, FL. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Gainesville, FL, to provide controlled airspace required to support the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) helicopter point in space approach at Shands Hospital.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporated by reference, Navigation (Air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Gainesville Regional Airport and that airspace within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (lat. 29°39′08″ N, long. 82°21′08″ W) serving Shands Hospital.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Forest Hill, Maryland (MD) to accommodate a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) that has been developed for Forest Hill Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP and for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
0901 UTC, October 25, 2007. Comments for inclusion in the rules Docket must be received on or before September 24, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527. You must identify the docket number FAA-2006-24320; Airspace Docket No. 06-AEA-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at
Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5581.
On May 11, 2006 the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Forest Hill, MD. (71 FR 27429). An original SIAP has been developed for this airport and this action provides adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations. Designations for Class E5 airspace areas extending upward from 700 fee or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received, however, in revalidating the proposed dimension of the airspace, it was found that the radius had been miscalculated and is actually 6.4 miles instead of 6.0 miles as proposed. Although it is believed that the corrected radius would not adversely affect airspace users, a 30-day comment period is being provided to give interested persons an opportunity to comment on the change.
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E5 airspace at Forest Hill, MD, to provide controlled airspace required to support the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 31 SIAP at Forest Hill Airport.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Forest Hill Airport, Forest Hill, MD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Poplar Bluff, MO. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft executing the new SIAP at Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, MO.
Send comments to this final rule to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.
You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-28773/Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2522.
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the direct final rule. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the direct final rule. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the direct final rule. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-28773/Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the class E airspace area at Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO. The radius of the Class E airspace area extending upward from
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under this section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.
This regulation is within the scope of that authority since it improves the safety of aircraft executing IFR procedures at Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport extending from the 7.6-mile radius, to 7.6 miles south of the airport.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Fort Dodge Animal Health, Division of Wyeth. The NADA provides for veterinary prescription use of etodolac injectable solution in dogs for the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis.
This rule is effective September 7, 2007.
Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-7540, e-mail:
Fort Dodge Animal Health, Division of Wyeth, 800 Fifth St. NW., Fort Dodge, IA 50501 filed NADA 141-274 that provides for veterinary prescription use of ETOGESIC (etodolac) Injectable in dogs for the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis. The application is approved as of August 16, 2007, and part 522 (21 CFR part 522) is amended by adding § 522.870 to reflect the approval.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(ii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval.
FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Orion Corp. The supplemental NADA provides for veterinary prescription use of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injectable solution as a sedative and analgesic in cats.
This rule is effective September 7, 2007.
Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-7540, e-mail:
Orion Corp., Orionintie 1, 02200 Espoo, Finland, filed a supplement to NADA 141-267 for DEXDOMITOR (dexmedetomidine hydrochloride). The supplemental NADA provides for veterinary prescription use of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injectable solution as a sedative and analgesic in cats. The supplemental application is approved as of August 15, 2007, and the regulations in 21 CFR 522.558 are amended to reflect the approval.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), summaries of the safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of these applications may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(c)
(B) For use as a preanesthetic to general anesthesia, administer 125 μg/m
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action on “Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods: Technical Amendments” to correct errors in a recent final rule that amended five instrumental test methods and was published on May 15, 2006. As published, the amendments contained inadvertent errors and provisions that need to be clarified. We are correcting errors and clarifying portions of the amendments to reflect the intent of the rule and to make them more understandable by affected parties.
This rule is effective on November 6, 2007 without further
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0071, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Foston Curtis, Air Quality and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-1063; fax number (919) 541-0516; e-mail address
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. The technical amendments we are making simply add clarity and correct errors in the prior rule. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
This rule applies to sources that are subject to the New Source Performance Standards, Clean Air Markets requirements, and other regulations that require the use of Method 3A of Appendix A-1, Methods 6C and 7E of Appendix A-4, and Method 20 of Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected include the following:
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this direct final rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final amendments will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this direct final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 6, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this direct final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20 measure oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide emissions from stationary sources. They are prescribed for use in determining compliance with a number of Federal, State, and Local regulations. The EPA published amendments to simplify, harmonize, and update these test methods on May 15, 2006 (71 FR 28081). These amendments became effective August 14, 2006. As published, the amendments contained inadvertent errors and provisions that need to be clarified. We are correcting errors and clarifying portions of the amendments to reflect the intent of the rule and to make them more understandable by affected parties.
EPA is taking the following actions:
1. We are clearly stating that precleaned or scrubbed air may be used for the high-level calibration gas provided no interfering gases are present.
2. An incorrect reference in Section 8.1 to Section 8.2 of Method 3 for sampling to determine gas molecular weight is corrected to reference Section 8.2.1 of Method 3.
In Section 6.2, a reference to Section 6.2.8.1 for dual-range analyzers is expanded to include Section 6.2.8.2 which also applies.
1. Under the descriptions for calibration gases in Section 3.3, the quality of zero gas allowed for instrument calibration is clarified. The current requirement is that all calibration gases be of EPA traceability protocol quality. However, the traceability protocol does not have a specification for zero gas. Therefore, we are adopting the specification for “zero air material” in 40 CFR 72.2 for zero gas in place of the traceability protocol.
2. In Section 3.4, we recommend the instrument calibration span be chosen such that emission concentrations are between 20 to 100 percent of the calibration span, “to the extent practicable.” We are adding a note, as an example, that meeting this 20 to 100 percent criterion may not be practicable when emissions are low relative to the emission limit and the purpose of the test is to show compliance with the emission limit.
3. Section 3.9 is clarified to note that drift is the difference between the pre- and post-run system bias checks instead of the difference between the measurement system readings for the pre- and post-run bias checks.
4. Section 3.12 is corrected to remove erroneous citations to 40 CFR 53.55 and 53.56 which have nothing to do with the manufacturer's stability test (MST).
5. Section 3.16 is corrected to note that system bias is calculated from the difference between the system calibration response and the manufacturer certified gas concentration and not from the difference between the system calibration response and the direct calibration responses.
6. In Section 6.2.2, we are specifically stating that the particulate media must be included in the system bias test only when using out-of-stack filters.
7. In Section 6.2.6, the description of the calibration gas manifold is clarified to note that blocking the sample flow is not necessary when in direct calibration mode, as suggested in the current method, but the calibration gas manifold may simply supply an excess of calibration gas through the system.
8. The method implies that all analyzers with calibration spans of 20 ppmv or less are required to perform the MST. In Section 6.2.8.2, we are clarifying the MST requirement to note that it is only required for those analyzers that are
9. The new converter efficiency check that was added in Section 16.2.2 requires the nitrogen dioxide (NO
10. In Section 7.2, we are clearly stating that the appropriate test gases listed in Table 7E-3,
11. In Section 8.1.2, we are explicitly stating that the required stratification test is to be performed at each test site except for small stacks that are less than 4 inches in diameter.
12. In Section 8.2.1, we are making it clear that testers must obtain a certificate from the gas manufacturer documenting the quality of the calibration gas.
13. In Section 8.2.4, we are clearly stating that the converter efficiency test may be performed either before or after a test or after a series of tests.
14. In Section 8.2.7, paragraph (1) is reworded to add clarity to the interference test, and paragraph (2) is corrected to note that the interference test is valid for the life of the instrument unless major components are replaced
15. In the sample traversing procedure in Section 8.4, we delete redundant language in paragraphs (1) and (2).
16. In paragraph (1) of Section 8.5, we clarify the handling of failed post-run bias checks by removing unnecessary wording.
17. In Section 10.0, we clearly state that analyzers which measure NO and NO
18. In Section 12.1, we are revising certain definitions to reflect the corrections being made to the calculations.
19. In Section 12.4, we correct the system calibration error equation by adding a term for the dilution factor.
20. In Section 12.6, we add a missing equation for calculating sample concentration when a zero gas is used as the low-level calibration gas.
21. In Section 12.9 we replace the erroneous equation added in the updates rule with the one traditionally used by the method.
22. In Section 12.11, we correct the equation for calculating the spike recovery.
23. In Section 13.5, we are adding the 2 percent limit for the alternative converter efficiency test.
24. In Section 16.2.2, we are deleting the procedures in paragraphs (2) and (3) because they are not needed for the test and are confusing.
25. In Section 16.3, the erroneous references to 40 CFR 53.55 and 53.56 are removed; only 53.53 is followed for the MST. A note is added to clarify that alternative procedures or documentation of instrument stability are acceptable.
26. In Table 7E-3, the title is edited to note that the table contains
27. In Table 7E-5, we correct the typographical error listing the NO
1. In Section 8.4, we are adding a minimum sample run time of 21 minutes.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 4 billion kilowatt-hr per year of electricity usage, depending on the size definition for the affected North American Industry Classification System code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory requirements.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
EPA has determined that this direct final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year, nor does this rule significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The amendments in this direct final rule will benefit State and Local governments by clarifying and correcting provisions they currently implement. No added responsibilities or increase in implementation efforts or costs for State and Local governments are being added in today's action. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175 entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”
This direct final rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This direct final rule
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
7.1 Calibration Gas. * * * Precleaned or scrubbed air may be used for the O
8.1 Sampling Site and Sampling Points. * * * In that case, you may use single-point integrated sampling as described in Section 8.2.1 of Method 3.
6.2 * * * The low-range and dual-range analyzer provisions in Sections 6.2.8.1 and 6.2.8.2 of Method 7E apply.
3.3
3.4
3.9
3.12 * * * An MST subjects the analyzer to a range of line voltages and temperatures that reflect potential field conditions to demonstrate its stability following procedures similar to those provided in 40 CFR 53.23. Ambient-level analyzers are exempt from the MST requirements of Section 16.3. * * *
3.16
6.2.2 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or out-of-stack filter. The filter must be made of material that is non-reactive to the gas being sampled. The filter media for out-of-stack filters must be included in the system bias test. The particulate filter requirement may be waived in applications where no significant particulate matter is expected
6.2.6 Calibration Gas Manifold. * * * In system calibration mode, the system should be able to flood the sampling probe and vent excess gas. * * *
6.2.8.2 Low Concentration Analyzer. When an analyzer is routinely calibrated with a calibration span of 20 ppmv or less, the manufacturer's stability test (MST) is required. See Table 7E-5 for test parameters.
7.1 Calibration Gas. * * * If a zero gas is used for the low-level gas, it must meet the requirements under the definition for “zero air material” in 40 CFR 72.2.
* * *
7.1.4 Converter Efficiency Gas. What reagents do I need for the converter efficiency test? The converter efficiency gas is a manufacturer-certified gas with a recommended concentration in the mid- to high-calibration gas range. Lower concentrations may be more appropriate where source emissions are low. For the test described in Section 8.2.4.1, NO
7.2 Interference Check. What reagents do I need for the interference check? Use the appropriate test gases listed in Table 7E-3 or others not listed that can potentially interfere (as indicated by the test facility type, instrument manufacturer, etc.) to conduct the interference check. These gases should be manufacturer certified but do not have to be prepared by the EPA traceability protocol.
8.1.2 Determination of Stratification. Perform a stratification test at each test site to determine the appropriate number of sample traverse points. A stratification test is not required for small stacks that are less than 4 inches in diameter. * * *
8.2.1 Calibration Gas Verification. * * * Obtain a certificate from the gas manufacturer documenting the quality of gas. * * *
8.2.4 NO
8.2.4.1 Introduce NO
8.2.7 Interference Check. * * *
(1) You may introduce the appropriate interference test gases (that are potentially encountered during a test, see examples in Table 7E-3) into the analyzer separately or as mixtures. Test the analyzer with the interference gas alone at the highest concentration expected at a test source and again with the interference gas and NO
(2) * * * This interference test is valid for the life of the instrument unless major analytical components (e.g., the detector) are replaced with different model parts. If major components are replaced with different model parts, the interference gas check must be repeated before returning the analyzer to service.
8.4 Sample Collection.
(1) Position the probe at the first sampling point. Purge the system for at least two times the response time before recording any data. Then, traverse all required sampling points, sampling at each point for an equal length of time and maintaining the appropriate sample flow rate or dilution ratio (as applicable). You must record at least one valid data point per minute during the test run.
(2) Each time the probe is removed from the stack and replaced, you must recondition the sampling system for at least two times the system response time prior to your next recording. If the average of any run exceeds the calibration span value, that run is invalid.
8.5 Post-Run System Bias Check and Drift Assessment.
How do I confirm that each sample I collect is valid? After each run, repeat the system bias check or 2-point system calibration error check (for dilution systems) to validate the run. Do not make adjustments to the measurement system (other than to maintain the target sampling rate or dilution ratio) between the end of the run and the completion of the post-run system bias or system calibration error check. Note that for all post-run system bias or 2-point system calibration error checks, you may inject the low-level gas first and the upscale gas last, or vice-versa. You may risk sampling for multiple runs before performing the post-run bias or system calibration error check provided you pass this test at the conclusion of the group of runs. A failed final test in this case will invalidate all runs subsequent to the last passed test.
(1) If you do not pass the post-run system bias (or system calibration error) check, then the run is invalid. You must diagnose and fix the problem and pass another calibration error test (Section 8.2.3) and system bias (or 2-point system calibration error) check (Section 8.2.5) before repeating the run. Record the system bias (or system calibration error) results on a form similar to Table 7E-2.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization * * *
(1) * * * Analyzers that measure NO and NO
12.1 Nomenclature. * * *
C
C
DF = Dilution system dilution factor or spike gas dilution factor, dimensionless. * * *
SB
12.4 System Calibration Error. * * *
12.6 Effluent Gas Concentration. For each test run, calculate C
12.9 Alternative NO
12.11 Calculated Spike Gas Concentration and Spike Recovery for the Example Alternative Dynamic Spiking Procedure in Section 16.1.3. * * *
13.5 NO
16.2.2 Tedlar Bag Procedure. * * * Fill the remainder of the bag with mid- to high-level NO in nitrogen (or other appropriate concentration) calibration gas.
16.3 Manufacturer's Stability Test. A manufacturer's stability test is required for all analyzers that routinely measure emissions below 20 ppmv and is optional but recommended for other analyzers. This test evaluates each analyzer model by subjecting it to the tests listed in Table 7E-5 following procedures similar to those in 40 CFR 53.23 for thermal stability and insensitivity to supply voltage variations. If the analyzer will be used under temperature conditions that are outside the test conditions in Table B-4 of Part 53.23, alternative test temperatures that better reflect the analyzer field environment should be used. Alternative procedures or documentation that establish the analyzer's stability over the appropriate line voltages and temperatures are acceptable.
8.4 Sample Collection. * * * A test run must have a duration of at least 21 minutes.
Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-264, October 19, 1998), authorized Federal agencies to conduct travel and relocation expenses test programs when determined by the Administrator of General Services to be in the interest of the Government. The provisions of the Act were implemented by a Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) amendment, and published in the
Pub. L. 109-325, October 11, 2006, amends 5 U.S.C. 5739 by extending the authority for the General Services Administration (GSA) to approve relocation expenses test programs for an additional four years. In addition, the law removes the 24-month period in which an agency had to complete an approved relocation expense test program. The amendments provided by Pub. L. No. 109-325 are effective as though enacted as part of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998.
This final rule incorporates Pub. L. 109-325 by removing the required period of time to complete a relocation test program and extends the authority to conduct relocation tests for an additional four years. The authority to conduct a travel test expense program was not renewed; accordingly, this final rule also deletes those provisions. The FTR and any corresponding documents may be accessed at GSA's website at
For clarification of content, contact Jim Harte, Program Analyst, Travel and Transportation Management Policy Division (MTT), telephone (202) 501-0483, email
On October 19, 1998, the President signed into law the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 (the Act) (Pub. L. 105-264). In applicable part, the Act authorized travel and relocation expenses test programs designed to enhance cost savings or other efficiencies that may accrue to the Government. The provisions of the Act were implemented by Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Amendment Number 83, dated May 7, 1999, and published in the
This final rule also requires agencies having an approved test program to submit annual reports on the progress of the test to the General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management. Failure to submit a report may cause termination of the test program approval. In addition, this final rule removes the provisions of the FTR relating to travel test programs as there is no longer any statutory authority for conducting such tests.
This regulation is excepted from the definition of “regulation” or “rule” under Section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993, and therefore was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of that executive order.
This final rule is not required to be published in the
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the final rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule is also exempt from congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.
Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses.
5 U.S.C. 5707, 5738, and 5739.
None. When authorized by the Administrator of General Services, the agency may pay any necessary relocation expenses in lieu of payments authorized or required under Chapter 302 of this title.
The duration of a test program is 24 months from the date of authorization unless terminated prior to that date by the Administrator of General Services due to changes in law or regulation. Extensions of the 24 month period may be granted by the Administrator of General Services for up to an additional 24 months, but not beyond October 2009, the expiration of the test authority. A request to extend the test program shall be submitted to the Administrator of General Services not later than 45 days prior to the expiration of the original test period.
(b) The agency authorized to conduct the test program must submit the following reports:
(1) An annual report on the progress of the test, submitted to the General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management (Attention MTT), Washington, DC 20405. The Administrator or designee may terminate the test program approval for failure to comply with these reporting requirements; and
(2) A final report on the results of the test program must be submitted to the General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management (Attention MTT), Washington, DC 20405, and to the appropriate committees of Congress within 3 months after completion of the program.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that a certain rule adopted in its Public Safety 700 MHz Band proceeding (WT Docket No. 96-86; FCC 00-264) in 2000, to the extent it contained an information collection requirement that required approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was approved, and became effective November 15, 2000, following approval by OMB.
The effective date for the final rule published on September 5, 2000 (65 FR 53645) revising 47 CFR 90.176 is November 15, 2000.
Rodney P. Conway, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-2904, or at
1. On July 21, 2000, the Commission adopted a Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (
2. On November 15, 2000, OMB approved the public information collection associated with this rule change under OMB Control No. 3060-0783. Therefore, the change to 47 CFR 90.176 became effective on November 15, 2000.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Final rulemaking.
On September 5, 2007, the Board served a decision that modifies its simplified rail rate guidelines, creating a simplified stand-alone cost approach for medium-size rail rate disputes and revising its three-benchmark approach for smaller rail rate disputes. The Board also places limits on the total relief available over a 5-year period under these two simplified approaches. Several rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) have been updated to reflect the changes in the simplified rail rate dispute approaches.
This action is effective October 7, 2007.
Timothy J. Strafford, (202) 245-0356. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
On September 5, 2007, the Board served a decision that modifies its simplified rail rate guidelines, creating a simplified stand-alone approach for medium-size rail rate disputes and revising its three-benchmark approach for smaller rail rate disputes. The Board also places limits on the total relief available over a 5-year period under these two simplified approaches. Under the new rail rate guidelines, rather than the Board declaring eligibility thresholds, the shipper will be required to determine which rate relief method will be applied to its case, with the understanding that there will be limits on the amount of relief available over a 5-year period based on the approach selected. The following limits will apply: Three-benchmark, $1 million over 5 years; and Simplified stand-alone cost, $5 million over 5 years. To reflect the changes in this decision, the following sections of the CFR have been amended: 1111.1, 1111.2, 1111.4, 1111.9, 1111.10, 1114.21, 1114.22, 1114.26, 1114.30, 1114.31, and 1115.9.
The Board's full decision is posted on the Board's Web site,
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action in this proceeding will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
49 U.S.C. 721, 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(1) and (3).
By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice-Chairman Buttrey, and Commissioner Mulvey.
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Freedom of Information.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations,
Administrative practice and procedure.
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A) and 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; and 49 U.S.C. 721. Section 1002.1(g)(11) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(f) * * *
(56) * * *
(ii) A formal complaint involving rail maximum rates filed under the Simplified-SAC methodology—10,600.
(iii) A formal complaint involving rail maximum rates filed under the Three Benchmark methodology—150.
(iv) All other formal complaints (except competitive access complaints)—17,600.
(v) Competitive access complaints—150.
(vi) A request for an order compelling a rail carrier to establish a common carrier rate—200.
49 U.S.C. 721, 10704, and 11701.
(a) * * *
(1) The carrier or region identifier.
(2) The type of shipment (local, received-terminated, etc.).
(3) The one-way distance of the shipment.
(4) The type of car (by URCS code).
(5) The number of cars.
(6) The car ownership (private or railroad).
(7) The commodity type (STCC code).
(8) The weight of the shipment (in tons per car).
(9) The type of movement (individual, multi-car, or unit train).
(10) A narrative addressing whether there is any feasible transportation alternative for the challenged movements.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology:
(2) In cases relying upon the Three-Benchmark method:
(b)
(1) Identification of all traffic that moved over the routes replicated by the SARR in the Test Year.
(2) Information about those movements, in electronic format, aggregated by origin-destination pair and shipper, showing the origin, destination, volume, and total revenues from each movement.
(3) Total operating and equipment cost calculations for each of those movements, provided in electronic format.
(4) Revenue allocation for the on-SARR portion of each cross-over movement in the traffic group provided in electronic format.
(5) Total trackage rights payments paid or received during the Test Year associated with the route replicated by the SARR.
(6) All workpapers and documentation necessary to support the calculations.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 721.
(a) * * *
(3) In cases using the simplified standards Three-Benchmark method, the number of discovery requests that either party can submit is limited as set forth in §§ 1114.22, 1114.26, and 1114.30, absent advance authorization from the Board.
(c)
(d)
(c)
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 721.
(b) In stand-alone cost complaints or in cases filed under the simplified standards, any interlocutory appeal of a ruling shall be filed with the Board within three (3) business days of the ruling. Replies to any interlocutory appeal shall be filed with the Board within three (3) business days after the filing of any such appeal. In all other cases, interlocutory appeals shall be filed with the Board within seven (7) calendar days of the ruling and replies to interlocutory appeals shall be filed with Board within seven (7) calendar days after the filing of any such appeal as computed under 49 CFR 1104.7.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Extension of comment period.
Notice is hereby given that the comment period on the reestablishment and revision of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) program is extended until September 24, 2007.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 24, 2007, to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments can be submitted on the Internet at:
Warren P. Preston, Chief, Livestock and Grain Market News Branch at (202) 720-6231, fax (202) 690-3732, or e-mail
On April 2, 2001, AMS implemented the LMR program as required by the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 (1999 Act). The statutory authority for the program lapsed on Sept. 30, 2005. In October 2006, Congress enacted legislation to reauthorize the 1999 Act through Sept. 30, 2010 (Reauthorization Act), and to amend the swine reporting requirements of the 1999 Act.
As such, a proposed rule was published in the
The comment period was originally scheduled to end on September 7, 2007. However, several industry organizations have requested additional time to provide more thorough comments. AMS believes it is beneficial to extend the comment period until September 5, 2007, in order to receive input from all interested parties.
7 U.S.C. 1621
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This rule invites comments on changes to the reporting requirements established under the California pistachio marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of pistachios grown in California and is administered locally by the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (committee). These changes would modify one existing committee form and add a new form to a currently-approved information collection. The information collected would require handlers to report production and producer data, enabling the committee to obtain better information for preparing its annual marketing policy statement and conducting committee nominations and periodic referenda under the marketing order for California pistachios. This proposal announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request revisions to a currently-approved information collection issued under the order. These changes are intended to enhance the efficient operation of the program.
Comments must be received by November 6, 2007. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from this proposal must be received by November 6, 2007.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 983 (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This proposal will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule invites comments on changes to the reporting requirements authorized under the order. These changes would modify one committee form and add a new reporting form to the currently-approved information collection. The new form would require handlers to report production and producer data. This new data would enable the committee to obtain better information for preparing its annual marketing policy statement and for conducting committee nominations and periodic referenda for pistachio producers.
The information collected on the new form would provide the committee with information that was previously available from the California Pistachio Commission (CPC), a California State marketing program.
As a result of a producer referendum, the CPC is to be terminated, and data historically collected by it and shared with the committee will no longer be available, beginning no later than August 31, 2007. Thus, information necessary for the effective administration of the order would need to be collected by the committee in the CPC's stead. Requiring handlers to report such data would allow the committee to collect information on the total available supply of pistachios grown in California and on the producers who produced the pistachios.
Under § 983.47 handlers are required to furnish such reports as the committee, with the approval of the Secretary, needs to enable the Secretary and the committee to perform their functions.
The committee met on April 2, 2007 to consider changes to their current reporting requirements. With the demise of their State counterpart, the CPC, the committee will need to collect information on producers and voting entities, the acreage of pistachios, and on receipts, inventory, and shipments of pistachios. This information is necessary for the effective administration of the order.
Requiring handlers to report such data would enable the committee to obtain better information on the total available supply of pistachios grown in California and to contact pistachio producers. The marketing order requires the committee to prepare the annual marketing policy statement. Several elements are required for an acceptable marketing policy statement: Production, harvesting, processing, and storage conditions data. The committee is also required to hold annual nominations for seats on the committee, and USDA is required to conduct periodic continuance referenda. Thus, the committee needs producer and production data to fulfill order requirements.
Section 983.37 of the order requires the committee to prepare a marketing policy statement annually when quality regulations are in effect under the order.
Section 983.47 of the order requires that handlers provide such reports and information as are needed to enable the committee to perform its functions and enforce the regulations under the order.
Under the authority of those sections, the committee unanimously recommended a revision to the current ACP Form 7, “Monthly Report of Inventory/Shipments;” and establishment of a new form, ACP Form 8, “Producer Delivery Report,” for the purpose of collecting production, producer, inventory, and shipment data from handlers.
This action would also slightly modify the handler reporting requirements in ACP Form 7. Currently, all handlers must report their beginning inventory, grower deliveries, shipments of pistachios to domestic and export markets, interhandler transfers, non-handler purchases of California product, inventory adjustments on split and shelled pistachios, and ending inventory on a monthly basis on the form. This rule would remove the requirement to report inventory adjustments to split and shelled pistachios, as the committee believes that this information is no longer needed. This form is part of a currently-approved information collection, OMB No. 0581-0215, “Pistachios Grown in California.”
The new form, ACP Form 8, “Producer Delivery Report,” would require handlers to annually provide the names of the producers who deliver pistachios to them, the producers' mailing addresses and other contact information (telephone and facsimile numbers and e-mail addresses), the producers' employer identification numbers, total receipts of pistachios from each producer, and the counties in which the pistachios were grown. These reports would allow the committee to identify all authorized voters for committee selections and referenda in which each business entity is entitled to cast one vote. Individual producers may produce and deliver pistachios under more than one business entity. The information collected on this report would also allow the committee to determine whether individual producers are eligible to represent more than one business entity, based upon Federal Tax Identification numbers.
The information on producer deliveries would also allow the committee to track deliveries to handlers and verify that handlers pay the appropriate assessments on pistachios they receive. This information would also streamline handler audits for committee staff.
Handlers who handle less than 5,000 pounds annually would be exempt from filing ACP Form 8. These small handlers tend to be producers who handle their own production only and are known to the committee in their producer, as well
Upon OMB approval, the revised ACP Form 7 and the new ACP Form 8 will be merged into OMB No. 0581-0215, “Pistachios Grown in California.” Specific burden information is detailed later in this document in the section entitled, “Paperwork Reduction Act.”
Such information would provide the committee with production and producer data to enhance the administration of the order. An electronic version of the form would be available to those handlers who file electronically.
Since the addition of ACP Form 8 would require changes to the order's rules and regulations, § 983.147 would be modified to add a new paragraph (g), and to redesignate current paragraphs (g) and (h) as paragraphs (h) and (i).
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses would not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 50 handlers of California pistachios subject to regulation under the order and approximately 740 producers in the production area. The Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and defines small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000. Of the 740 producers, approximately 722 have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Eight of the 50 handlers subject to regulation have annual pistachio receipts of at least $6,500,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of California pistachios may be classified as small entities.
This proposed rule invites comments on changes to the regulations authorized under the California pistachio marketing order (order), which would revise a currently-approved information collection.
The committee discussed data collection at its meeting on April 2, 2007. It determined that production data the CPC previously collected and made available to the committee was still necessary for the efficient operations of the program. Therefore, the committee agreed that it should require handlers to report production data directly to the committee. In order to receive this data, the committee unanimously recommended that current ACP Form 7, “Monthly Report of Inventory/Shipments,” be revised and that a new form, ACP Form 8, “Producer Delivery Report,” be developed.
The committee deliberated the value of revising the current form and requiring the new form, and discussed alternatives. In their discussion, the committee determined that the only alternative would be to not collect such industry data. However, the marketing order requires the committee to prepare the annual marketing policy statement. Several elements are required for an acceptable marketing policy statement: Production, harvesting, processing, and storage conditions data. The committee is also required to hold annual nominations for seats on the committee, and USDA is required to conduct periodic continuance referenda. Thus, the committee needs this data to fulfill order requirements.
The revised ACP Form 7 and the new ACP Form 8 are being submitted to the OMB as a revision to a currently-approved information collection and upon approval these forms will be merged into OMB No. 0581-0215, “Pistachios Grown in California.” As with other marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
This proposal would impose additional reporting and recordkeeping burdens on handlers. However, any additional burden is expected to be offset by the efficient operation of the order. Handlers would continue to file the ACP Form 7 monthly and would file the ACP Form 8 annually, but the data collected would serve multiple purposes and streamline committee operations. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. A detailed discussion of the amended form follows.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Further, the committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the pistachio industry and all interested persons were encouraged to attend the meetings and participate in the committee's deliberations. Like all committee meetings, the April 2, 2007, meeting was a public meeting, and entities of all sizes were encouraged to express their views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 60-day comment period is provided for interested persons to comment on this proposal. All written comments received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the AMS announces its intention to submit a revision to a currently-approved information collection. This proposed rule creates a new form and revises an existing form. Upon approval of this revision by OMB, the forms will be merged with the forms approved under OMB No. 0581-0215, “Pistachios Grown in California.”
On April, 2, 2007, the committee unanimously recommended revising the current ACP Form 7 and developing a new ACP Form 8 on which handlers report to the committee the receipts of pistachios grown in California. This notice concerns those reports, in addition to the accompanying regulation previously discussed regarding requiring the reports to be submitted by handlers to the committee.
The committee delegated the task of developing the final versions of the forms to their Technical Subcommittee, which met on May 7, 2007.
Due to the pending termination of the CPC, the committee will need to begin collecting production, producer, and inventory data directly from handlers. The committee would use this information in its marketing policy deliberations each year when it reviews the production, harvesting, processing, and storage of the California crop. They would also use it conduct committee nominations, and USDA would use it to conduct periodic producer referenda. The committee needs accurate information to effectively administer the order.
The information collected would be used only by authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs regional and headquarters staff, and authorized employees of the committee. Authorized committee staff are the primary users of the information, and AMS is the secondary user. Such information would be kept confidential in accordance with the Act and the order.
The proposed request for revision of a currently-approved information collection under the order is as follows:
Handlers would use this form to report their monthly inventory, receipts, domestic and export shipments of pistachios, interhandler transfers, non-handler purchases of California product, inventory adjustments, and the ending inventory. Because small handlers are exempt from filing all forms other than the ACP-4, there are only an estimated 20 huller/dryer handlers who would be required to file this form.
Handlers would use this form annually to notify the committee of the receipts of pistachios and to report information on producers who own the acreage upon which the pistachios are grown. There are only an estimated 14 producers/handlers who receive pistachios for processing from other producers, thus, there would be fewer handlers filing this form.
Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-0215 and the Marketing Order for Pistachios Grown in California, and should be sent to the USDA in care of the Docket Clerk at the previous-mentioned address or at
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments received will become a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address or at
In summary, this proposal would modify one reporting form and establish a new reporting requirement under the order.
Requiring handlers to file the new reports would allow the committee to obtain accurate information for preparation of the mandatory annual marketing policy statement, and for the conduct of committee nominations and periodic referenda. Since the addition of ACP Form 8 would require changes to the order's rules and regulations, § 983.147 would be modified to add a new paragraph (g), and to redesignate current paragraphs (g) and (h) as paragraphs (h) and (i).
All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
Pistachios, Marketing agreements and orders, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 983 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. In § 983.147, current paragraphs (g) and (h) are redesignated as paragraphs (h) and (i), and a new paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:
(g)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Prune Marketing Committee (committee) for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes. The committee locally administers the marketing order that regulates the handling of dried prunes in California. Assessments upon dried prune handlers are used by the committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The higher assessment rate is needed to offset an anticipated decrease in dried prune production this year. The crop year begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by September 27, 2007.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Kurt Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 110 and Marketing Order No. 993, both as amended (7 CFR part 993), regulating the handling of dried prunes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California dried prune handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable dried prunes beginning on August 1, 2007, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the committee for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes handled.
The California dried prune marketing order provides authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers of California dried prunes. They are familiar with the committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed at a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2006-07 and subsequent crop years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from crop year to crop year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.
The committee met on June 28, 2007, and unanimously recommended an increased assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes and expenditures totaling $102,523 for the 2007-08 crop year. In comparison, last year's approved expenses as amended in April 2007 were $104,973. The proposed assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is $0.20 higher than the rate currently in effect.
The committee recommended a higher assessment rate based on a production estimate of 95,000 tons of salable dried prunes for this year, which is substantially less than the 187,737 tons produced last year. At the proposed assessment rate the assessment income for the 2007-08 crop year would be $57,000. The committee's proposed budget of expenses of $102,523 includes a five percent increase in personnel expenses, and a two percent increase in operating expenses. Combined salaries and expenses are about four percent higher than last year, or about $65,580. The committee also included $36,943 for contingencies. Most of the committee's expenses reflect its portion of the joint administrative costs of the committee and the California Dried Plum Board. Based on the committee's reduced activities in recent years, it is funding only ten percent of the shared expenses of the two programs. This funding level is similar to that of last year. The committee believes carryover funds, plus assessment and interest income, would be adequate to cover its estimated expenses of $102,523.
The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2007-08 crop year include $50,505 for salaries and benefits, $15,075 for operating expenses, and $36,943 for contingencies. For the 2006-07 crop year, the committee's budgeted expenses were $48,405 for salaries and benefits, $15,645 for operating expenses, and $44,326 for contingencies.
The assessment rate recommended by the committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by the estimated salable tons of California dried prunes. Dried prune production for the year is estimated to be 95,000 salable tons, which should provide $57,000 in assessment income at the proposed
The committee is authorized under § 993.81(c) of the order to use excess assessment funds from the 2006-07 crop year (currently estimated at $45,423) for up to 5 months beyond the end of the crop year to meet 2007-08 crop year expenses. At the end of the 5 months, the committee either refunds or credits excess funds to handlers.
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committees or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the committee would continue to meet prior to or during each crop year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of committee meetings are available from the committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate the committee's recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The committees' 2007-08 budget and those for subsequent crop years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,100 producers of dried prunes in the production area and approximately 22 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000.
An estimated 1,068 of the 1,100 producers (97.1 percent) have incomes of less than $750,000 and would be considered small producers. Fourteen of the 22 handlers (63.6 percent) have incomes from handling prunes of less than $6,500,000 and could be considered small handlers. Therefore, the majority of handlers and producers of California dried prunes may be classified as small entities.
This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes.
The committee met on June 28, 2007, and unanimously recommended estimated expenses for 2007-08 of $102,523 and an increased assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes. The committee's recommended budget was based on a five percent increase in personnel expenses and a two percent increase in operating expenses. Combined salaries and expenses are about four percent higher than last year, or about $65,580. The committee also included $36,943 for contingencies. Most of the committee's expenses reflect its portion of the joint administrative costs of the committee and the California Dried Plum Board. Based on the committee's reduced activities in recent years, it is funding only ten percent of the shared expenses of the two programs. This funding level is similar to that of last year. The committee believes carryover funds, plus assessment and interest income, would be adequate to cover its estimated expenses of $102,523.
The proposed assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is $0.20 higher than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of salable dried prunes for the 2007-08 crop year is currently estimated at 95,000 tons of salable dried prunes, compared to 187,737 tons of salable dried prunes for the 2006-07 crop year.
The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2007-08 crop year include $50,505 for salaries and benefits, $15,075 for operating expenses, and $36,943 for contingencies. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2006-07 were $48,405 for salaries and benefits, $15,645 for operating expenses, and $44,326 for contingencies.
The 2007-08 crop year assessment rate was derived after considering anticipated crop year expenses; estimated production of salable dried prunes; and the estimated income from other sources, such as interest. Therefore, the committee recommended an assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes.
Prior to arriving at its budget of $102,523, the committee considered information from various sources, including the committee's Executive Subcommittee. Alternative assessment rates, including the rate currently in effect, and different expenditure levels were discussed by the subcommittee and the committee. An alternative to this action would be to continue with the $0.40 per ton assessment rate. However, an assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes, along with excess funds from the 2006-07 crop year, is needed to provide enough income to fund the committee's operations.
Therefore, the committee agreed that $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is an acceptable assessment rate. Section 993.81(c) of the order provides the committee the authority to use excess assessment funds from the 2006-07 crop year (currently estimated at $45,423) for up to 5 months beyond the end of the crop year to meet 2007-08 crop year expenses. At the end of the 5 months, the committee either refunds or credits excess funds to handlers.
A review of historical information and preliminary data pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the producer price for the 2007-08 crop year is expected to average between $1,500 and $1,600 per ton of salable dried prunes. Based on an estimated 95,000 salable tons of dried prunes, assessment revenue as a percentage of producer prices during the 2006-07 crop year is expected to be between .038 and .040 percent.
This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California dried prune industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the June 28, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California dried prune handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 20-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Twenty days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2007-08 crop year will begin on August 1, 2007, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each crop year apply to all assessable prunes handled during such crop year; (2) the committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.
Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 993 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 993.347 is revised to read as follows:
On and after August 1, 2007, an assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is established for California dried prunes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8C1/-8C5/-8C5B1/-8E5/-8E5A1, and CF34-10E series turbofan engines with certain part number (P/N) and serial number (SN) fuel metering units (FMU) installed. This proposed AD would require a onetime test of the FMU for a miswired (reversed polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid. This proposed AD results from the discovery of miswired FMU overspeed solenoids in the field. We are proposing this AD to prevent the engine from failing to shutdown as commanded during an overspeed, leading to uncontained engine failure.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 6, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD.
•
•
•
•
•
You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services, 10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215; telephone (513) 672-8400; fax (513) 672-8422.
Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Woodward Governor Company has discovered in the field a miswired (reversed polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid, on some FMUs. Investigation of FMU manufacturing records shows that there is a possibility that a population of FMUs might be miswired. If the solenoid is miswired, the engine will fail to shut down as commanded. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the engine to shutdown as commanded during an overspeed, leading to uncontained engine failure.
We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF34-8C-AL S/B 73-0030, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007, SB No. CF34-8E-AL S/B 73-0015, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007, and SB No. CF34-10E S/B 72-0067, Revision 1, dated July 26, 2007 that describe procedures for performing a onetime test of suspect FMUs for a miswired (reversed polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require a onetime test of suspect FMUs for a miswired (reversed polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,055 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.25 work-hour per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. We estimate that about 2 percent of the inspected solenoids are defective, and it will cost about $5,000 to replace each FMU. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $180,000. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by November 6, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to:
(1) General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8C1/-8C5/-8C5B1/-8E5/-8E5A1 turbofan engines, with GE fuel metering unit (FMU) part number (P/N) 4120T01P02, serial numbers (SNs) WYG94939 through WYGB4222, and Woodward Governor FMU Vendor Identification Number (VIN) 8061-926, SNs 11954378 through 15140071.
(2) GE CF34-10E series turbofan engines, with GE FMU P/N 2043M10P05, SNs WYGA3251 through WYGB4085, and Woodward Governor FMU VIN 8063-884, SNs 13335695 through 15028283.
(3) CF34-8C1/-8C5/-8C5B1 turbofan engines are installed on, but not limited to, Bombardier Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (CRJ-700 & -701), and CL-600-2D24/-2D15 (CRJ-900) airplanes.
(4) CF34-8E5/-8E5A1 turbofan engines are installed on, but not limited to, Embraer ERJ 170-100/-200 series airplanes.
(5) CF34-10E series turbofan engines are installed on, but not limited to, Embraer ERJ 190-100/-200 series airplanes.
(d) This AD results from the discovery of miswired FMU overspeed solenoids in the field. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine to shutdown as commanded during an overspeed, leading to uncontained engine failure.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within 2,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 24 months after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Perform a onetime test of the FMU for a miswired (reversed polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid.
(g) Use paragraph 3A of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF34-8C-AL S/B 73-0030, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007, SB No. CF34-8E-AL S/B 73-0015, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007, or SB No. CF34-10E S/B 72-0067, Revision 1, dated July 26, 2007, as applicable, to do the test.
(h) If the FMU fails the test, remove the FMU.
(i) If you performed the actions specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this AD, using the inspection procedures in GE SB No. CF34-8C-AL S/B 73-0030, dated May 25, 2007, SB No. CF34-8E-AL S/B 73-0015, dated June 1, 2007, or SB No. CF34-10E S/B 72-0067, dated June 7, 2007, before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the compliance requirements of this AD.
(j) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(4) or (j)(5) of this AD:
(1) Submit a report of all findings (both positive and negative) of the testing required by paragraph (f) of this AD to Customer Support Manager, Woodward Governor Company, e-mail:
(2) The report must include date of inspection, serial number of FMU, and results of the inspection.
(3) Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(4) If the inspection is done after the effective date of this AD, submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
(5) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD, submit the report within 10 days after the effective date of this AD.
(k) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(l) None.
(m) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
As a result of a Wide Spread Fatigue Damage (WFD) calculation on A310 aircraft it was found that a modification of the upper fuselage circumferential joint at FR (frame) 55/58 is necessary to enable the aircraft to reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG).
The unsafe condition is failure of the circumferential joint of the upper fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 2007.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149.
The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and
This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0111, dated April 25, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
As a result of a Wide Spread Fatigue Damage (WFD) calculation on A310 aircraft it was found that a modification of the upper fuselage circumferential joint at FR (frame) 55/58 is necessary to enable the aircraft to reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG).
As a consequence, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires the reinforcement of the affected fuselage frame butt joint.
The unsafe condition is failure of the circumferential joint of the upper fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-53-2125, including Appendix 01, dated January 9, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 67 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 330 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,016 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,970,872, or $29,416 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by October 9, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in any category; all certified models; all serial numbers; except airplanes that have received in-service application of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2125.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
As a result of a Wide Spread Fatigue Damage (WFD) calculation on A310 aircraft it was found that a modification of the upper fuselage circumferential joint at FR (frame) 55/58 is necessary to enable the aircraft to reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG).
As a consequence, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires the reinforcement of the affected fuselage frame butt joint.
The unsafe condition is failure of the circumferential joint of the upper fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions: Reinforce the fuselage butt joint at FR 55/58 in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Airbus
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0111, dated April 25, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2125, dated January 9, 2007; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines with fuel manifold part numbers (P/Ns) 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12 installed. This proposed AD would require removing and discarding the loop clamps that assemble the fuel manifold to the compressor rear frame (CRF) friction damper brackets, visually inspecting the fuel manifold for wear at each clamp location, and replacing the clamps with new, zero-time parts. This proposed AD results from fuel manifold vibration during engine operation that causes the loop clamps that assemble the manifold to the CRF to deteriorate. Fourteen fuel leak events occurred over the past several years. We are proposing this AD to prevent fuel leaks during engine operation that could result in an under-cowl fire.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 6, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD.
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
During a pre-flight inspection in November 2002, a manifold fuel leak was found on a CF6-80C2B1F turbofan engine. This fuel leak resulted from fuel manifold vibration during engine operation, which caused the loop clamps that assemble the manifold to the CRF to deteriorate. The cushion on the loop clamp wore away resulting in the metal strip of the clamp rubbing into the fuel manifold. A fuel leak resulted. The high surface temperature of the CRF during engine operation could have ignited the leaking fuel resulting in an under-cowl fire.
In 2003, GE issued service bulletins for the CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1series turbofan engines recommending repetitive visual inspection of the fuel manifolds at intervals of 4,500 flight-hours (FH). Despite these recommendations, five fuel leak events occurred in 2006; one resulting in an under-cowl fire on a CF6-80C2B6F turbofan engine. There have been three additional fuel leak events to date in 2007. A total of thirteen CF6-80C2 series turbofan engine fuel leaks (November 2002 through May 2007) and one CF6-80E1 fuel leak (January 2007) have been reported. Five of the recent events occurred within the 4,500 FH since the last inspection.
Because of the increased number of fuel leak events and the low FH intervals since the last inspection, this proposed AD would reduce the initial re-inspection FH interval, and would require replacing the fuel manifold loop clamps with new, zero-time parts at each inspection. This proposed AD is necessary to prevent fuel leaks during engine operation that could result in an under-cowl fire.
In the manufacturer's original service bulletins, GE recommends inspecting the fuel manifold for wear at 4,500 FH. However, the service bulletins do not recommend replacing the loop clamps at each inspection.
Because recent field events involving fuel leaks indicate a reduced inspection interval is required, this AD would require removing loop clamps and inspecting the fuel manifold according to the following schedule:
• For engines previously inspected using GEAE service bulletins, SB 73-0226, dated March 5, 2003, for CF6-80C2 engines; or SB 73-0061, dated April 14, 2003, for CF6-80E1 engines, within 1,750 FH since-last-inspection.
• If used loop clamps or clamps of unknown heritage were installed at last shop visit, within 1,750 FH since-last-shop-visit.
• For first-run engines and engines with zero-time, new loop clamps installed at last shop visit, within 7,500 FH.
• For affected engines that have already exceeded the 1,750 FH initial inspection threshold, within 4,500 FH of the last inspection or 4 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever comes first.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require removing and discarding the loop clamps that assemble the fuel manifold to the compressor rear frame damper (CRF) friction damper brackets, visually inspecting the fuel manifold for wear at each loop clamp location, and replacing the clamps with new, zero-time parts.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 350 CF6-80C2 series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $162 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators for one manifold visual inspection and loop clamp replacement to be $168,700.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by November 6, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to:
(1) GE CF6-80C2A1, -80C2A2, -80C2A3, -80C2A5, -80C2A8, -80C2A5F, -80C2B1, -80C2B2, -80C2B4, -80C2B6, -80C2B1F, -80C2B1F1, -80C2B1F2, -80C2B2F, -80C2B3F, -80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6F, -80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, -80C2L1F, -80C2K1F turbofan engine models configured with fuel manifold part numbers (P/Ns) 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12. These engines are installed on, but not limited to Boeing 747, 767, MD11, and Airbus A300 and A310 airplanes.
(2) This AD also applies to GE CF6-80E1A1, -80E1A2, -80E1A3, -80E1A4, -80E1A4/B turbofan engine models with fuel manifold P/N's 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12. These engines are installed on Airbus A330 airplanes.
(d) This AD results from fuel manifold vibration during engine operation that causes the clamps that assemble the manifold to the compressor rear frame (CRF) to deteriorate. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks. The high surface temperature of the CRF could ignite the leaking fuel resulting in an under-cowl fire.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Remove and discard the loop clamps, P/N J1220G10, that assemble the fuel manifold to the Compressor Rear Frame friction damper brackets, inspect the fuel manifold for wear at each clamp location as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and replace the loop clamps with new, zero-time parts at each inspection. Use the following schedule in Table 1 of this AD:
(g) Remove any tape applied to clamp locations. Visually inspect the full circumference of the manifold at each clamp location.
(h) If the fuel manifold shows any signs of wear, determine the depth of the wear as follows:
(1) Measure the outside diameter of the tube using a pinpoint micrometer adjacent to the worn area.
(2) Measure the worn area at the smallest diameter.
(3) Subtract the measurement of the worn tube diameter from the unworn diameter measurement. Allowable wear is 0.0035 inch.
(i) Before further flight, replace fuel manifolds with wear greater than 0.010 inch.
(ii) Replace fuel manifolds with wear greater than 0.0035 inch, but less than 0.010 inch, within 50 flight cycles.
(i) Within 30 days of the effective date of this AD, revise the air carrier's approved CAMP and ALS of Chapter 5 in the CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to add:
(1) Repetitive inspections of fuel manifolds, P/Ns 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12, as detailed in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, at 7,500 FH intervals.
(2) Mandatory removal of loop clamps, P/N J1220G10, that assemble the fuel manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12, to the Compressor Rear Frame friction damper brackets, at each inspection.
(3) Replacement of loop clamps, P/N J1220G10, with new, zero-time parts, at each inspection.
(j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(k) GE service bulletins GEAE CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0226, dated March 5, 2003, and GEAE CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, dated April 14, 2003; and the following General Electric engine manuals pertain to the subject of this AD: CF6-80C2 Engine Manual GEK 92451; CF6-80C2L1F Engine Manual GEK 112213; CF6-80C2K1F Engine Manual GEK 112721; and CF6-80E1 Engine Manual GEK 99376.
(l) Contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803; e-mail:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Prairie Du Sac, WI. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) at Sauk-Prairie Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Sauk-Prairie Airport, Prairie Du Sac, WI.
Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2007.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-28778/Airspace Docket No. 07-AGL-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at
Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; at telephone number (816) 329-2522.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposal rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket umbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-28778/Airspace Docket No. 07-AGL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future copies of NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71, by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sauk-Prairie Airport, Prairie Du Sac, WI. aAnew RNAV (GPS) IAP has made this action necessary for the safety of IFR operations at Sauk-Prairie Airport, Prairie Du Sac, WI. This area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.
Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Sauk-Prairie Airport, Prairie Du Sac, WI.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing “Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods: Technical Amendments” to correct errors in a recent final rule that amended five instrumental test methods and was published on May 15, 2006. As published, the amendments contained inadvertent errors and provisions that need to be clarified. We are correcting errors and clarifying portions of the amendments to reflect the intent of the rule and to make them more understandable by affected parties.
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received by October 9, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0071, by mail to Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. Please include a total of 2 copies. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Mr. Foston Curtis, Air Quality and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-1063; fax number (919) 541-0516; e-mail address
This document proposes to take action on “Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods: Technical Amendments.” We have published a direct final rule to correct and clarify updates to test methods in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the
This rule applies to sources that are subject to the New Source Performance Standards, Clean Air Markets requirements, and other regulations that require the use of Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20 of appendices A-1, A-4, and A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated include the following:
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory requirements.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year, nor does this rule significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The amendments in this direct final will benefit State and Local governments by clarifying and correcting provisions they currently implement. No added responsibilities or increase in implementation efforts or costs for State and Local governments are being added in today's action. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175 entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This direct final rule does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing two optional methods for relative accuracy audits of mercury monitoring systems installed on combustion flue gas streams and several amendments to related mercury monitoring provisions. In specific, this action proposes two optional mercury (Hg) emissions test methods for potential use in conjunction with an existing regulatory requirement for Hg emissions monitoring specified in the
Written comments must be received by October 9, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0164, by mail to “Two Optional Methods for Relative Accuracy Test Audits of Mercury Monitoring Systems Installed on Combustion Flue Gas Streams and Several Amendments to the Related Mercury Monitoring Provisions, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.” Please include a total of two copies. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Either Mr. William Grimley, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (E143-02), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-1065, facsimile number (919) 541-0516, e-mail address:
This document proposes to take action on “Two Optional Methods for Relative Accuracy Test Audits of Mercury Monitoring Systems Installed on Combustion Flue Gas Streams and Several Amendments to Related Mercury Monitoring Provisions.” We have published a direct final rule to approve two optional Hg emissions test methods and to amend the Hg monitoring provisions of May 18, 2005 for clarity and increased regulatory flexibility because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this direct final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this direct final rule to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 4 billion kilowatt-hr per year of electricity usage, depending on the size definition for the affected North American Industry Classification System code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory requirements, but rather provides clarification and additional regulatory flexibilty.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year, nor does this rule significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because it contains no requirements that impose new obligations upon them. Thus, this direct final rule is not subject to the
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The use of these methods is optional on the part of the regulated entities listed. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this direct final rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This direct final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking involves technical standards. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA in a previous related rulemaking (70 FR 28606, May 18, 2005) identified an acceptable VCS for measuring Hg emissions. The standard ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary sources (Ontario Hydro Method) was cited in that final rule for measuring Hg emissions. After today's action becomes effective, the Ontario Hydro Method will remain an acceptable method for measuring Hg emissions.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This direct final rule does not affect or relax the control measures on sources impacted by this rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors, Electric utilities, Mercury, Test methods and procedures.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors, Electric utilities, Mercury, Test methods and procedures.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors, Electric utilities, Mercury, Test methods and procedures.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
Under the Medicaid program, Federal payment is available for the costs of administrative activities “as found necessary by the Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan.” The proposed rule would eliminate reimbursement under the Medicaid program for the costs of certain activities based on a Secretarial finding that these activities are not necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan, nor do they meet the definition of an optional transportation benefit. Based on these determinations, under the proposed rule, Federal Medicaid payments would no longer be available for administrative activities performed by school employees or contractors, or anyone under the control of a public or private educational institution, and transportation from home to school and back for school-aged children with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or an Individualized Family Services Plan (IFSP) established pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on November 6, 2007.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2287-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
Sharon J. Brown, (410) 786-0673, Judi Wallace, (410) 786-3197.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. E.S.T. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes Federal grants to States for Medicaid programs, operated by the State under an approved State plan, that provide medical assistance to needy individuals including low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Federal payment is available to States for a proportion of expenditures for medical assistance under the approved State plan, and qualified expenditures for administration of the State plan. This joint Federal-state financing of expenditures is described in section 1903(a) of the Act, which sets forth the rates of Federal financing for different types of expenditures.
Under section 1903(a)(7), of the Act, Federal payment is currently available at a rate of 50 percent of amounts expended by a State “as found necessary by the Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan.” In addition, OMB Circular A-87, which contains the cost principles for State, local and Indian tribal governments for the administration of Federal awards, states that, “Governmental units are responsible for the efficient and effective administration of Federal awards.” Under these provisions, administrative expenditures must be reasonable and necessary for the operation of the governmental unit or the performance of the Federal award.
Transportation to and from providers is not expressly mentioned in the Medicaid statute. Since the inception of the program, however, the Federal
Federal regulations at 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 431.53 require that State plans “specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers” and describe the methods for doing so. Alternatively, under 42 CFR 440.170(a), the option of furnishing transportation as an optional covered service recognized under section 1905(a)(28) of the Act is defined and specified. Whether transportation is furnished as an administrative activity or as a covered service could affect the Federal Medicaid matching rate and the flexibility available to the State, but these issues are not relevant for purposes of this proposed regulation.
A wide range of medical services are furnished to students in school settings. In particular, pursuant to requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools deliver a broad range of educational and related services (e.g., educational, social, and medical services) to students with disabilities to address their diverse needs.
Section 411(k)(13) of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA) amended section 1903(c) of the Act to clarify that Federal Medicaid payment is available for otherwise covered services furnished to children in fulfillment of requirements under IDEA. Specifically, section 1903(c) of the Act, as amended by the MCCA, prohibits the Secretary from denying or restricting Federal Medicaid payment to States for covered services furnished to a child with a disability on the basis that the services are included in the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Individualized Family Services Plan (IFSP) established pursuant to the IDEA.
Some of the special education and related services required by the IDEA are within the scope of services provided under the Medicaid program. Medicaid covers direct medical services included in an IEP or IFSP under the following conditions:
• The direct medical services are medically necessary and included in a Medicaid covered category (speech therapy, physical therapy, etc.);
• All other Federal and State Medicaid regulations are followed, including those for provider qualifications, comparability of services and the amount, duration and scope provisions; and
• The direct medical services are included in the State's approved Medicaid plan and/or available under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) program.
As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would not affect Federal reimbursement for direct medical service expenditures (other than certain transportation costs, discussed separately below).
CMS has previously recognized that schools and school districts may perform activities that provide support for the Medicaid State plan. In 1997, CMS issued a guidance document entitled, “MEDICAID AND SCHOOL HEALTH: A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GUIDE,” that interpreted existing law and regulations to permit States to claim Federal Medicaid matching funds for the costs of school-based administrative activities, specifically including Medicaid outreach, eligibility intake, information and referral, coordination and monitoring of health services, and interagency coordination. In that guidance, CMS emphasized that allowable activities must directly relate and support the Medicaid State plan or waiver services.
In May 2003, CMS issued additional guidance on school-based claiming in the “Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide” (the Guide). The Guide was intended to inform schools, State Medicaid agencies, and other interested parties on the appropriate methods for claiming Federal reimbursement for the costs of Medicaid administrative activities performed in the school setting. The Guide described allowable Medicaid school-based administrative activities as including the following:
• Medicaid Outreach
• Facilitating Medicaid Eligibility Determinations
• Transportation Related Activities in Support of Medicaid Covered Services
• Translation Related to Medicaid Services
• Program Planning, Policy Development, and Interagency Coordination Related to Medical Services
• Medical/Medicaid Related Training
• Referral, Coordination, and Monitoring of Medicaid Services
As discussed further below, this proposed rule would supersede the prior guidance and would represent the Secretary's determination that Medicaid expenditures for such school-based administrative activities do not meet the statutory test under section 1903(a)(7) of being “necessary * * * for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan.” However, the proposed rule does not bring into question the legitimacy of the types of Medicaid administrative activities provided in schools. Rather, it reflects the Secretary's determination that such activities are only necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan when conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency. Due to inconsistent application of Medicaid requirements by schools to the types of administrative activities conducted in the school setting, the Secretary has determined that such activities can only be properly conducted, overseen and appropriately allocated to Medicaid when conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency.
CMS recognizes that schools are valid settings for the delivery of Medicaid services. Under the proposed rule, CMS would continue to reimburse States for the costs of school-based direct medical services under the IDEA that are covered in their approved State Medicaid plan, and for transportation of school-age children from school to a non-school-based provider that bills under the Medicaid program, among other types of expenditures that will remain eligible for Federal financial participation (FFP).
Ensuring transportation to and from providers is a required administrative activity under CMS regulations at 42 CFR 431.53 or, alternatively, transportation to and from providers can be furnished as a medical service recognized by the Secretary under section 1905(a)(28) of the Act, as indicated in 42 CFR 440.170(a).
CMS previously addressed school-based transportation in the guidance document discussed in the prior section, and in guidance contained in a May 21, 1999, letter to State Medicaid Directors. In those documents, CMS expressed the policy that Medicaid payment for transporting Medicaid-eligible children to and from school was extremely limited, including only specialized transportation that is required under an IEP for children with disabilities, on a day when that child receives a covered medical service from a qualified provider at the school. In
However, as discussed further below, the proposed rule would supersede the prior guidance and would represent the Secretary's determination that transportation from home to school and back does not meet the definition of an optional medical transportation service nor is it necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan.
In general, States submit claims for Federal funds with respect to expenditures under their Medicaid programs either as “medical assistance” or as “State/local administration.”
FFP for allowable medical assistance expenditures under the Medicaid program is determined by the applicable Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) rate for a given State. The FMAP rate is determined annually for each State by a formula based on the relationship of the State's average per capita income level with the national per capita income level.
The State Medicaid Agency (SMA) reimburses participating Medicaid providers, including school providers, for allowable direct medical service expenditures. These reimbursement rates are set by the SMA and, therefore, any discussions regarding the appropriateness of such rates on the part of providers must be conducted at the State level. The reimbursement methodology is contained in the CMS approved Medicaid State Plan.
The proposed rule would not affect Federal reimbursement for the costs of allowable direct medical service expenditures.
According to the Medicaid statute at section 1903(a)(7) of the Act and implementing regulations at 42 CFR 430.1 and 42 CFR 431.15, for the costs of any administrative activities to be allowable and reimbursable under Medicaid, the activities must be “found necessary by the Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the plan” (referring to the Medicaid State plan).
In addition, OMB Circular A-87, which contains the cost principles for State, local and Indian tribal governments for the administration of Federal awards, states that, “Governmental units are responsible for the efficient and effective administration of Federal awards.” Under these provisions, administrative expenditures must be reasonable and necessary for the operation of the governmental unit or the performance of the Federal award.
FFP for allowable administrative expenditures in schools is available at a matching rate of 50 percent. The proposed rule would eliminate reimbursement for administrative expenditures conducted by school employees or contractors, or anyone under the control of a public or private educational agency, and certain transportation costs, as specified below. However, under the proposed rule, Federal funding would continue to be available for administrative overhead costs which are integral to, or an extension of, a specified direct medical service to the extent those costs are factored into the rate paid for such services and reimbursed at the applicable FMAP rate. These overhead costs include patient follow-up, assessment, counseling, education, parent consultations, and billing activities. Furthermore, school-based administrative activities, such as Medicaid outreach and eligibility intake, that are conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency, will remain eligible for FFP.
CMS has had long-standing concerns about improper billing by school districts for administrative costs and transportation services. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have identified these categories of expenses as susceptible to widespread fraud and abuse. In addition, costs related to education mandates have been improperly allocated to Medicaid. Congress has also expressed concern about the dramatic increase in Medicaid claims for school-based costs, which were the subject of two U.S. Senate Finance Committee hearings, held in June 1999 and April 2000. In fact, examining State-reported expenditure data related to schools reveals that, in certain years, a number of States' reported school-based administrative expenditures approached or even exceeded their reported school-based direct medical service expenditures, which is clearly evidence of improper claiming in this area. There may be certain States that do not submit claims for the costs of direct services provided in schools, thereby accounting for instances in which a State's school-based administrative expenditures exceed their direct service expenditures, but such instances are an exception to overall school-based expenditure reporting trends.
The proposed rule would establish a Secretarial finding that school-based administrative activities are not necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan. Moreover, this proposed rule would establish a finding that transportation from home to school and back for school-age children is neither necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan, nor within the scope of the optional medical transportation benefit. Based on these findings, the proposed rule would specify that FFP under the Medicaid program will not be available for school-based administrative and certain transportation costs unless conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency.
Under the proposed rule, the following changes would apply for the costs of the following activities or services:
• FFP would no longer be available for the costs of school-based administrative activities under Medicaid. As discussed below, by administrative activities we refer to activities that are not properly included in the scope of a covered service. School-based administrative expenditures are expenditures under the administrative control of a public or private educational institution and that are conducted by school employees or contractors, or anyone under the control of a public or private educational agency.
• FFP would no longer be available for the costs of transportation from home to school and back for school-age children with an IEP or IFSP established pursuant to the IDEA.
The rule would supersede all previous guidance, including guidance on school-based administrative claiming and school-based transportation.
Under the proposed rule, CMS would continue to reimburse States for school-based direct Medicaid services in their approved State plans. That is, the proposed rule would not affect the treatment of expenditures for direct medical services that are included in the approved State Medicaid plan and provided in schools, nor would it affect transportation of school-aged children from school or home to a non-school-based direct medical service provider that bills under the Medicaid program, or from the non-school-based provider to school or home.
Furthermore, under the proposed rule, CMS would continue to reimburse States for transportation costs related to children who are not yet school-age and are being transported from home to another location, including school, and back to receive direct medical services, as long as the visit does not include an educational component or any activity unrelated to the covered direct medical service.
Federal funding would also continue to be available for administrative overhead costs that are integral to, or an extension of, a direct medical service and, as such, are claimed as medical assistance. These activities are properly reimbursed at the applicable FMAP rate for the related direct medical service, and include patient follow-up, assessment, counseling, education, parent consultations, and billing activities. Furthermore, school-based administrative activities, such as Medicaid outreach and eligibility intake, that are conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency will remain eligible for FFP under the proposed rule.
CMS has determined that administrative activities performed by schools, and transportation of school-age children from home to school and back, are not necessary for proper and efficient administration of the State Medicaid plan, and are not within the scope of the transportation services recognized by the Secretary under 42 CFR 440.170(a), for the following reasons:
(1) The activities or services support the educational program and do not specifically benefit the Medicaid program;
(2) The activities or services are performed by school systems to further their educational mission and/or to meet requirements under the IDEA, even in the absence of any Medicaid payment;
(3) The types of school-based administrative activities for which claims are submitted to Medicaid largely overlap with educational activities that do not directly benefit the Medicaid program; and
(4) Transportation from home to school and back is not properly characterized as transportation to or from a medical provider.
School-based administrative activities and transportation from home to school and back are performed primarily to support educational programs rather than administration of the State Medicaid Plan. One of the essential functions of schools is to ensure that students receive all required services necessary to obtain a free appropriate public education.
Students receive transportation from home to school and back regardless of whether or not they are determined eligible for special education services. Transportation from home to school and back is an essential school function and is furnished by the school regardless of whether medical services are received at the school. School-age children, including children with an IEP or IFSP, are transported from home to school primarily to receive an education, not to receive direct medical services. Because transportation coincides with the school schedule and is not directly related to a visit to a medical provider, characterization of the transportation as medically necessary to gain access to providers is inaccurate.
With respect to school-based administrative activities, section 1903(c) of the Act provides specific authority under the Medicaid program only for reimbursement of medical assistance for specified covered services in schools; it contains no provision authorizing claiming for the costs of school-based Medicaid administration. CMS has determined that the costs of school-based administrative activities only meet the requirement of being proper and efficient for the administration of the State plan to the extent they are conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency, rather than school employees or contractors, or anyone under the control of a public or private educational institution. In addition, the types of school-based administrative activities for which claims are submitted to Medicaid largely overlap with educational activities that do not directly benefit the Medicaid program. Furthermore, there is unclear and inconsistent application of Medicaid requirements by schools to the types of administrative activities conducted in the school setting. Therefore, under the proposed rule, the costs of school-based administrative activities would only be allocable to Medicaid when provided by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency.
States receive Federal aid under IDEA to assist public schools in delivering mandated services in pursuit of a free appropriate public education. Section 1903(c) of the Act was intended to provide States with access to Medicaid funding for services provided under IDEA in addition to Federal funding provided through IDEA grants to States. Therefore, CMS has determined that the proper and efficient operation of the State Medicaid plan does not require payment for the cost of administration unrelated to the provision of a covered direct medical service or for transportation from home to school and back. Schools must perform these activities pursuant to education requirements, even in the absence of Medicaid payment. Activities performed by school employees are therefore not specifically authorized by the responsible State Medicaid agency.
The proposed rule would eliminate FFP for State claims related to transporting school-age children from home to school and back. However, if a Medicaid eligible student is transported from school to an appointment for a covered service with a non-school-based direct medical service provider that bills under the Medicaid program, the costs of such transportation would remain eligible for FFP.
Furthermore, under the proposed rule CMS would continue to reimburse States for transportation costs related to children who are not yet school-age and are being transported from home to another location, including school, and back to receive direct medical services as long as the visit does not include an educational component or any activity unrelated to the covered direct medical service.
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-534), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258 and Executive
States have the option under the proposed rule to continue funding school-based administrative activities using State-only funds; this rule simply eliminates the availability of Federal Medicaid matching funds for these expenditures when they are performed by employees of the school or contractors, or anyone under the control of a public or private educational institution, rather than employees of the Medicaid agency. However, with respect to transportation specifically, States and/or schools will be required under the proposed rule to continue funding transportation of school-age children from home to school and back to the extent it is required by education statute(s). That is because schools provide transportation to and from school for all students, not just (or even primarily) special education or Medicaid eligible students.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public schools to provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities. The IDEA authorizes funding through the U.S. Department of Education (not Medicaid) for special education and related services for children with disabilities. While section 1903(c) of the Social Security Act authorized Medicaid funding for covered services included in an individualized education plan under the IDEA, section 1903(c) does not expressly authorize Medicaid funding for administrative activities that schools conduct in implementing their IDEA responsibilities.
Medicaid matching funds provided as reimbursement for administrative activities are supplemental to the State and local funding localities already received. Furthermore, the estimated annual Federal savings under this proposed rule is only about one eighth of one percent of total annual spending on elementary and secondary schools (in 2004 total elementary and secondary spending was $453 billion according to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 245, at
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this rule would not have a direct impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $130 million. This rule contains no mandates. The proposed rule anticipates Federal savings of approximately $635 million in the first year following implementation, but does not require States to replace that Federal funding with State funding or take any other particular steps. Any mandates regarding school transportation spending arise under State constitutions, or other Federal or State laws. School-based Medicaid administrative activities and transportation from home to school and back are not required activities under the Medicaid statute.
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirements on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. EO 13132 focuses on the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government, and requires Federal deference to State policy making discretion when States make decisions about the uses of their own funds or otherwise make State-level decisions. We find that this rule would not have a substantial effect on State or local government policy discretion. While the proposed rule would eliminate the ability of States to claim Federal Medicaid funding for school-based administrative and certain transportation costs, notably routine home-to-school and back bus transportation, it would not impose any requirement as to how States or localities administer or pay for such activities, or interfere in any way with the ability of States to determine school transportation policy. The rule would simply recognize that routine school transportation from home to school and back and related administrative activities are not authorized under the Medicaid statute as necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan, nor do they meet the
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The proposed rule is a major rule because it is estimated to result in $635 million in savings during the first year and $3.6 billion in savings over the first five years. The following chart summarizes our estimate of the anticipated effects of this proposed rule.
These estimates assume implementation beginning in the 2008-09 school year and are based on recent reviews of State reported school-based administrative and direct medical service expenditures reported on the quarterly CMS expenditure forms (MBES/CBES Form 64.10I and Form 64.10PI Information Forms for School-Based ADM and MAP claims). From these voluntary State claiming reports, an estimate of the total amount of claims under the Medicaid program that would be affected by the proposed rule was developed and then projected forward using assumptions consistent with the most recent President's Budget projections. There is uncertainty in this estimate to the extent that State-reported expenditures related to school-based administration and transportation may not match actual current spending and to the extent that the impact of the proposed rule is greater than or less than assumed. Furthermore, claims related to the costs of transportation from home to school and back as a direct service are included in the total amount claimed for all medical assistance. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the impact of the proposed rule on the types of transportation costs that would be affected.
In developing this regulation, various alternatives were considered. We considered the possibility of conducting stronger review of reimbursement methodologies for the costs of Medicaid administrative activities provided in schools and transportation from home to school and back. We also considered seeking to implement policies requiring greater accountability and oversight responsibility for school-based administrative and transportation expenditures, and clarification of Federal requirements without any new regulation (using existing statutory and regulatory authority). In addition, we considered developing standard parameters applicable to claiming for all school-based Medicaid administration and transportation costs. However, CMS attempted, by issuing the May 2003 Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide, to provide specific guidance on the requirements for claming costs related to school-based activities. In the end, we ultimately rejected these alternatives because the intervening years have proven that such activities cannot be adequately regulated or overseen.
CMS has determined that the rulemaking process would be the most effective method of implementing these policies because the rulemaking process would better inform affected parties, allow for public input, and make clear that the requirements set forth are uniform, fair and consistent with the underlying statutory intent. We welcome comments on this regulatory impact analysis and any additional information that would be useful in assessing the potential impact of the proposed rule.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Medicaid, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Claims, Grant programs—health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—health, Medicaid.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
2. Section 431.53 is revised to read as follows:
(a) A State plan must—
(1) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers; and
(2) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this requirement.
(b) For purposes of this assurance, necessary transportation does not include transportation of school-age children between home and school.
3. The authority citation for part 433 continues to read as follows:
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
4. Part 433 is amended by adding new section 433.20 as follows:
Federal financial participation under Medicaid is not available for expenditures for administrative activities by school employees, school contractors, or anyone under the control of a public or private educational institution.
5. The authority citation for part 440 continues to read as follows:
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
6. Section 440.170(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
(a)
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a joint environmental impact statement/report.
The USDA Forest Service, together with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in response to applications received from Southern California Edison for construction of a series of transmission system improvements to deliver electricity from new wind energy projects in eastern Kern County. The proposed project would be located in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. The purpose of the project is to provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate levels of new wind generation in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area, and accommodate solar and geothermal projects currently being planned or expected in the future. It would also improve the reliability of the transmission grid in the Antelope Valley and address existing constraints in the transmission system south of the Lugo Substation in Hesperia, California. The Forest Service is the lead Federal agency for the preparation of this EIS/EIR in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and all other applicable federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and direction. The CPUC is the lead State of California agency for the preparation of the EIS/EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resource Code Division 13, and all other applicable state laws and regulations. Both agencies have determined an EIS/EIR is needed to effectively analyze the proposal and evaluate impacts.
The proposed project involves several types of transmission upgrades, including: (1) Constructing new 500-kV transmission lines; (2) constructing o new single-circuit 220-kV transmission lines; (3) rebuilding existing 220-kV lines to 500-V standards; (4) rebuilding existing single-circuit transmission lines to double-circuit transmission lines; (5) relocating several existing 66-kV subtransmission lines; (6) constructing a new 500-kV substation; and (7) upgrading five existing substations. Approximately 46 miles of the project would be located in a 200- to 400-foot right-of-way on National Forest System land (managed by the Angeles National Forest) and approximately 3 miles would require expanded right-of-way within the Angeles National Forest. The USDA Forest Service and the CPUC invite written comments on the scope of this proposed project. In addition, the agencies give notice of this analysis so that interested and affected individuals are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by October 1, 2007. Nine public scoping meetings are planned to provide information about the proposed project and to allow people to comment on the proposed project. The draft EIS/EIR is expected to be published in July 2008 and the final EIS/EIR is expected in December 2008.
To request a copy of the draft or final EIS/EIR and/or to send written comments, please write to the Angeles National Forest and/or California Public Utilities Commission, c/o Aspen Environmental Group, 30423 Canwood Street, Suite 215, Agoura Hills, CA 91301.
E-mail communications are also welcome; however, please include your name and a return address in the e-mail message. E-mail messages should be sent to
For additional information related to the project on National Forest System land, contact George Farra, Project Manager, Forest Service, Angeles National Forest, 701 N. Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA 91006, phone: (626) 574-5301. For additional information related to the project on non-National Forest System land, contact John Boccio, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102; phone: (415) 703-2641. Project information can also be requested by leaving a voice message or sending a fax to the Project Information Hotline at (888) 331-9897.
Southern California Edison would construct, use, and maintain a series of new and upgraded high-voltage electric transmission lines and substations to deliver electricity generated from new wind energy projects in eastern Kern County, California. The proposed transmission system upgrades are seperated into eight distinct segments. The proposed projects's major components include the following, by segment:
• Segment 4: Construct a new ~16-mile single-circuit 500-kV transmission line from the new Whirlwind Substation to the existing Antelope Substation. The existing right-of-way would be expanded by 200 feet and construct two new parallel ~4-mile single-circuit 220-kV transmission lines from the proposed Cottonwind Substation (not part of this project) to the new Whirlwind Substation. The transmission line would be initially energized at 220 kV with the intent of energizing the system to 500 kV in the future as more wind projects are developed.
• Segment 5: Replace two single-circuit 220-kV transmission lines (Antelope-Vincent and Antelope-Mesa) with a new ~18-mile single-circuit 500-kV transmission line in existing ROW between Antelope Substation and Vincent Substation.
• Segment 6: Replace 27 miles of the Antelope-Mesa 220-kV transmission line and 5 miles of the Rio Hondo-Vincent No. 2 with a single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between Vincent
• Segment 7: Replace ~16 miles of the Antelope-Mesa 220-kV transmission line with a single-circuit 500-kV transmission line from the southern boundary of the Angeles National Forest to the Mesa Substation.
• Segment 8: Replace ~33 miles of 220-kV transmission line from the San Gabriel Junction (2 miles east of Mesa Substation) to the existing Mira Loma Substation. Relocate 66-kV subtransmission lines in the Mesa and Chino Areas within existing or public right-of-way. Additionally, ~45 existing double-circuit 66-kV subtransmission lines in the Mesa and Chino Areas would be removed/relocated within existing or public right-of-way or undergrounded.
• Segment 9: Construct new 500/220-kV Whirlwind Substation adjacent to Path 26 and upgrade the Antelope Substation to include new 500-kV facilities. Expand and upgrade 500-kV facilities at Vincent Substation. Install reactive compensation equipment at Vincent Substation and Antelope Substation. Upgrade the Gould Substation, Mesa Substation, and Mira Loma Substation within the existing fence line.
• Segment 10: Construct a new ~17-mile single-circuit 500-kV transmission line in a new 330-foot-wide corridor from the approved WindHub Substation to the new Whirlwind Substation.
• Segment 11: Replace ~19 miles of single-circuit 220-kV transmission line with a single-circuit 500-kV transmission line from Vincent Substation to Gould Substation. Install ~18 miles of 220-kV circuit on the vacant side of existing double-circuit 220-kV lattice steel towers (now carrying the Eagle Rock-Mesa 220-kV transmission line) between Gould Substation and Mesa Substation.
Construction activities associated with the proposed action would include upgrading 5 existing substations, construction of 1 new substation, installation of approximately 851 new towers, repairing existing access and spur roads along with the temporary use and construction of spur roads, and the temporary use of approximately 141 new pulling locations and 103 new splicing locations. Only segments 6 and 11 are located on National Forest System lands.
The purpose for this action is to provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate levels of new wind generation in excess of 700 MW and up to approximately 4,500 MW in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area, and accommodate solar and geothermal projects currently being planned or expected in the future. The project will also address the reliability needs of the CAISO-controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley and the South of Lugo transmission constraints.
Southern California Edison has proposed the construction of a 220/500-kV transmission system that would include a series of new and upgraded high-voltage electric transmission lines and substations to deliver electricity from new wind energy projects in eastern Kern County, California. The project would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate levels of new wind generation in excess of 700 MW and up to approximately 4,500 MW in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area.
Under Sections 210 and 212 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 (i) and (k)) and Sections 3.2 and 5.7 of the California Independent System Operator's Tariff, Southern California Edison is obligated to interconnect and integrate this wind energy project into its system. In addition, the 2001 National Energy Policy goals are to increase domestic energy supplies, modernize and improve our nation's energy infrastructure, and improve the reliability of the delivery of energy from its sources to points of use.
Executive Order 13212 encourages increased production and transmission of energy in a safe and environmentally sound manner. According to Executive Order 13212, for energy-related projects, agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects. The agencies shall take such actions to the extent permitted by law and regulations, and where appropriate. Based on the 2005 Angeles National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the proposed routes are within designated utility corridors.
Presently, the USDA Forest Service and the CPUC have identified preliminary action alternatives for consideration in the environmental analysis. The alternatives currently under consideration (besides the proposed action) are:
• The No-Action Alternative, under which the proposed transmission line would not be constructed and no expansion activities would occur.
• The Non-National Forest System Land Alternative that would avoid proposed activities on National Forest System lands. This alternative would be developed during the environmental review process.
• Alternate routing between Windhub and Whirlwind Substations (Segment 10).
Additional alternatives will be developed, as needed, during the environmental review process. The final alternatives analyzed in detail will depend on the issues raised during public scoping and further investigation of the feasibility of alternatives.
The USDA Forest Service and the CPUC will be joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are responsible for the preparation of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service will serve as the lead agency under NEPA. The CPUC will serve as the lead agency under CEQA in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 4, § 15050.
The Forest Service responsible official for the preparation of the EIS/EIR is Jody Noiron, Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest, 701 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006.
The Forest Supervisor for the Angeles National Forest will decide whether to authorize a 50-year term Special Use Permit for construction, use, and maintenance of 500-kV transmission lines and a new 220-kV circuit. The authorization will include ancillary improvements on National Forest System lands needed to maintain this system (e.g., towers, roads, communication equipment, helicopter landing sites). The Forest Supervisor will only make a decision regarding impacts on National Forest System lands.
Public participation will be especially important at several stages during the analysis. The lead agencies will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, and other individuals and organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed project. This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS/EIR.
Nine scoping meetings are proposed to provide information about the proposed project to the public and to allow people to comment on the proposed project. The scoping meetings will be held on the following dates, times, and locations:
1. September 6, 2007, 6:30 p.m.; La Serna High School, Cafeteria, 15301 Youngwood Drive, Whittier, CA 90605; 562-698-8121.
2. September 10, 2007, 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.; Palmdale Cultural Center, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550; 661-267-5656.
3. September 11, 6:30 p.m.; Kern County Library—Wanda Kirk Branch, 3611 Rosamond Blvd., Rosamond, CA 93561; 661-256-3236.
4. September 12, 6:30 p.m.; Duarte Community Center, 1600 Huntington Drive, Duarte, CA 91010; 626-303-8429.
5. September 13, 2007, 6:30 p.m.; Garvey Community Center, 9108 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770; 323-720-5213.
6. September 19, 2007, 6:30 p.m.; Altadena Community Center, 730 E. Altadena Drive, Altadena, CA 91001; (626) 398-6174.
7. September 20, 2007, 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.; Chino Hills Council Chambers, 2001 Grand Avenue, Chino Hills, CA 91709; 909-930-8495.
A number of potential impacts were identified in the
A 50-year term special use permit for the construction, maintenance, and use of the transmission line would be authorized to Southern California Edison by the Forest Supervisor for the Angeles National Forest for Segments 6 and 11, and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity would be issued by the California Public Utilities Commission as part of this decision. Additional permits that may be required of Southern California Edison to construct the proposed project could include: A Permit to Operate issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit issued by California's Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Section 404 Permit (per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement ( per Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code) issued by the California Department of Fish and Game.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the development of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service is seeking public and agency comment on the proposed project to identify major issues to be analyzed in depth and assistance in identifying potential alternatives to be evaluated. Comments received on this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered as part of the public record on this proposed project, and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality. Where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted, without names and addresses, within a specified number of days.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, that it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed project, comments on the draft EIS/EIR should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS/EIR or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Township of Lakewood, New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 235, requesting authority to expand its existing zone to include additional sites in or adjacent to the Philadelphia Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations
FTZ 235 was approved on November 25, 1998 (Board Order 1008, 63 FR 67854, 12/9/98). The zone project currently consists of the following two sites (2,248 acres total) in the Township of Lakewood:
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the zone to include two additional sites in the area:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 6, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 21, 2007.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: Township of Lakewood, Municipal Building, 231 Third Street, Lakewood, NJ 08701; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO), grantee of FTZ 7, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the pharmaceutical manufacturing and warehousing facilities of Lilly del Caribe, Inc. (Lilly) located in Carolina, Mayagüez and Guayama, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). The application was filed on August 27, 2007.
The Lilly facilities consist of 3 sites on 375 acres in Puerto Rico. Proposed
Lilly has requested authority to manufacture two pharmaceutical products, Humalog (HTSUS 2937.12) and Duloxetine (HTSUS 2934.99) for the U.S. market and export. Duty rates on the finished products range from duty-free to 6.5 percent,
The application also requests authority to include a broad range of inputs and finished pharmaceutical products that Lilly may produce under FTZ procedures in the future. New major activity involving these inputs/products would require review by the FTZ Board.
Zone procedures could exempt Lilly from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. On domestic sales, Lilly could defer duty until the products are entered for consumption, and choose the lower duty that applies to the finished product for the foreign components used in production. The company would also realize certain logistical savings related to zone-to-zone transfers and direct delivery procedures, as well as savings on materials that become scrap/waste during manufacturing. The application indicates that FTZ-related savings would help improve Lilly's international competitiveness.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 6, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 21, 2007).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations:
U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, Centro Internacional de Mercadeo, Tower II, Suite 702, Road 165, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, 00968-8058.
Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 8, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the final remand results made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the CIT's remand of the final results of antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad & Tobago.
August 18, 2007.
Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-3692, respectively.
In
On May 21, 2007, the Department released a draft of the final remand results to interested parties and requested that they submit comments by May 29, 2007. On May 25, 2007, respondent submitted comments. Petitioners did not submit comments. On June 15, 2007, the Department issued to the CIT its final remand results. In the final remand results the Department made a change to the credit expenses used in the constructed export price calculation. The Department also changed the inventory costs used in its constructed export calculation to reflect the date of invoice as the date of sale. Thus, the Department recalculated the antidumping duty rates applicable to applicable to Mittal Steel Point Lisas, Ltd. On August 8, 2007, the CIT sustained the Department's final remand results. The recalculated margin for these final remand results is 4.08 percent.
In its decision in
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
September 7, 2007.
Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1131 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On October 2, 2006, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 period of review (POR).
On February 20, 2007, Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) withdrew its request for an administrative review of its entries during the above-referenced period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Because Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) withdrew its request for review within the 90-day period and no other party requested a review of its entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.).
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the publication of this notice. The Department will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) during the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006.
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
September 7, 2007.
Matthew Quigley at (202) 482-4551, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate, and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, as well as a lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of the sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
On May 1, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following:
a. Lawn furniture;
b. Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays”;
c. Side tables;
d. Child-sized tables;
e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36” high and matching stools; and,
f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28” to 36” wide by 48” to 96” long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set.
2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:
a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both;
b. Lawn furniture;
c. Stools;
d. Chairs with arms; and
e. Child-sized chairs.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0015, 9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).
On January 13, 2003, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “Poly-Fold” chairs consisting of steel frames (20-gauge steel) with polypropylene seats and backs, zinc-plated rivets coated with an epoxy polyester powder coating, three drainage holes in the seat, specially designed back leg cross bar, four oversized leg stoppers with drainage holes, and a frame with hybrid coating are within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
On May 5, 2003, the Department issued a scope ruling with respect to the “Complete Office-To-Go” set, which consists of a single chair and a table with a monitor stand and legs that fold as a set. The Department ruled that the chair component is within the scope of the antidumping duty order because the chair component is identical to the chairs described in the order, but the Department ruled that table component is outside the scope of the antidumping duty order because it has legs that fold in sets.
On September 7, 2004, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that folding tables with tops made of blow-molded plastic and frames made of steel are within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that folding metal chairs, with wooden seats that have been padded with foam and covered with fabric or polyvinyl chloride and attached to a tubular steel seat frame with screws, are within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
Also on July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “butterfly” chairs are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order. Butterfly chairs are described as consisting of a collapsible metal rod frame and a cover, such that when the chair frame is spread open, the pockets of the cover are slipped over the upper ends of the frame and the cover provides both the seating surface and back of the chair. The frame consists of eight s-shaped pieces (with the ends offset at almost a 90-degree angle) made from metal rod that are connected by hinges. In order to collapse the frame, the chair cover must be removed. The frame is collapsed by moving the four legs inward until they meet in the center, similar to the folding mechanism of a pocket umbrella.
On May 1, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “moon chairs” are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order. Moon chairs are described as containing circular, fabric-padded, concave cushions that envelope the user at approximately a 105-degree reclining angle. The fabric cushion is ringed and supported by two curved 16-mm steel tubes. The cushion is attached to this ring by nylon fabric. The cushion is supported by a 16-mm steel tube four-sided rectangular cross-brace mechanism that constitutes the moon chair's legs. This mechanism supports and attaches to the encircling tubing and enables the moon chair to be folded. To fold the chair, the user pulls on a fabric handle in the center of the seat cushion of the chair.
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 29, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
September 7, 2007.
Hilary E. Sadler, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4340.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published an antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (“hand trucks”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on December 2, 2004.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the 245-day time period to a maximum of 365 days. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondents' sales practices, factors of production, and to issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires.
Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 90 days until December 1, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Because December 1, 2007, falls on a Saturday, the preliminary results will be due by December 3, 2007, the next business day. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.
This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a timely request by the petitioners,
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (“NV”). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
September 7, 2007.
Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B-099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-3773, respectively.
On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the
FSAB submitted its response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire on November 27, 2006, Sections B, D, and E of the questionnaire on December 22, 2006, and Section C of the questionnaire on January 5, 2007. We issued to FSAB a Sections A through C supplemental questionnaire on January 26, 2006. FSAB submitted a timely response to this supplemental questionnaire on March 9, 2007.
On March 22, 2007, we issued a decision memorandum which outlined the Department's basis for collapsing FSAB with its affiliates, AB Sandvik Materials Technology (“SMT”) and Kanthal AB (“Kanthal”), and treating them as a single entity in this review.
We issued to FSAB a Sections D and E supplemental questionnaire on March 27, 2007. FSAB submitted timely responses to this supplemental questionnaire on May 1 and 8, 2007, respectively.
On April 24, 2007, we issued to FSAB a second Sections A and C supplemental questionnaire to which it submitted a timely response on May 15, 2007.
On May 21, 2007, we partially extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until August 31, 2007.
On July 10, 2007, we issued to FSAB a second Section E supplemental questionnaire to which it submitted a timely response on July 17, 2007.
In response to the Department's request, FSAB submitted on August 22, 2007, cost of production (“COP”) information for three products sold in the United States during the POR which it inadvertently did not include in its May 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response (
On August 24, 2007, we issued FSAB a supplemental questionnaire based on our analysis of its August 22, 2007, submission. For purposes of the preliminary results, we have relied on the data provided by FSAB in the August 22, 2007, submission. However, we will examine the information submitted by FSAB in response to the August 24, 2007, questionnaire for the final results of this review.
For purposes of this order, SSWR comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter.
Certain stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The following proprietary grades of Kanthal AB are also excluded: Kanthal A-1, Kanthal AF, Kanthal A, Kanthal D, Kanthal DT, Alkrothal 14, Alkrothal 720, and Nikrothal 40. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows:
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,
To determine whether sales of SSWR by FSAB to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared constructed export price (“CEP”) to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by FSAB covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2)(ii), we compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by FSAB in the following hierarchical order: grade, diameter, further processing, and coating.
In its December 22, 2006, response to Section B of the questionnaire (“Section B response”), FSAB requested, as it did in the prior administrative review, that the Department include an additional characteristic, electro-slag remelting (“ESR”),
In accordance with the Department's practice, when identical merchandise is not available in the home market for comparison to merchandise sold to the United States, the Department will compare “similar” merchandise based upon the physical characteristics of the merchandise being compared.
When the Department has an established model-matching methodology in a proceeding, it may alter its established methodology if there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
As in the prior review, we preliminarily find no compelling reason in this review to change the current model-matching criteria as requested by FSAB. In this review, FSAB used ESR to produce one AISI-equivalent SSWR grade
Moreover, we do not find that there is greater accuracy with respect to comparing the foreign like product to the most similar U.S. model if we include ESR as a model-matching criterion. Specifically, the Department's current product-matching criteria use all of FSAB's home market sales of the ESR-treated and non-ESR-treated grade at issue (
Furthermore, we find no basis to include remelting in the model-matching criteria because its use in the production of SSWR is limited. We note that other stainless steel products such as stainless steel plate and stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, like SSWR, do undergo, to a limited extent, some form of remelting.
Furthermore, we find that the use of other production processes or steps (i.e., not just remelting) to make SSWR can have an impact on costs and can also affect the quality (both internally and externally) of the final SSWR product, including the level of inclusions, and therefore, the resulting quality of the final SSWR product is not necessarily unique to the remelting process. Moreover, we find that these additional production steps appear to be dependent on a particular customer's request, as in the case of FSAB's use of ESR to produce one SSWR grade sold in the home market during the POR. Therefore, we find that such use appears to be limited and, therefore, is the exception rather than the norm when producing SSWR. In prior reviews, the Department has stated that changing the model-matching criteria may be warranted if an interested party can show that a specific standard exists that is not captured in the model-matching criteria but which is industry-wide, commercially accepted and recognizes material physical characteristics of various types for the particular product at issue.
As pointed out earlier, ESR is but one form of remelting. As such, even though FSAB may have only started using the ESR process to produce the one grade at issue after the Department completed the LTFV segment of this proceeding, we find that other forms of remelting, such as VAR, have been used to produce SSWR before the initiation of the LFTV segment of this proceeding.
We recognize that FSAB may have incurred additional costs when it used ESR to remelt one AISI-equivalent SSWR grade of merchandise sold in the home market during the POR. We also recognize that a producer which remelts grades of steel used to produce any stainless steel product may incur additional costs, and those costs will be greater when compared to the costs incurred to produce the same grades without remelting. However, in this case, the single AISI-equivalent SSWR
We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was either sold for the account of FSAB by its subsidiary, Fagersta Stainless, Inc. (“FSI”), in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers, or subsequently further manufactured into non-subject merchandise by its affiliate, Sandvik Materials Technology U.S. (“SMT U.S.”), in the United States and then resold to its unaffiliated customers.
We based CEP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the correct starting price by adjusting for alloy surcharges and billing adjustments associated with the sale, and by making deductions for early payment discounts and volume rebates, where applicable, as required by section 772 of the Act. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight (including freight from the plant to the port of exportation), U.S. brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses (including freight from the U.S. port to the U.S. customer or warehouse, and freight from the warehouse to the U.S. customer) offset by freight revenue, U.S. customs fees (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit expenses, warranty expenses, and repacking expenses) and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the country of exportation and the United States. We also deducted an amount for further-manufacturing costs, where applicable, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, and made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. To calculate the cost of further manufacturing, we relied on SMT U.S.'s reported cost of further-manufacturing materials, labor, and overhead, plus amounts for further- manufacturing general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, and financial expenses. For further details regarding the further-manufacturing cost calculation,
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
Because FSAB's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that its home market was viable.
During a portion of the POR, FSAB sold the foreign like product to an affiliated customer. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a product-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's practice, where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length.
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the export price (“EP”) or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent).
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP
We obtained information from FSAB regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Our LOT findings are summarized below.
FSAB sold SSWR only to end-users in the home market, but sold to both end-users and distributors in the U.S. market. FSAB reported that it made CEP sales in the U.S. market through the following two channels of distribution: (1) sales of FSAB-produced SSWR to its U.S. affiliate FSI (“U.S. Channel 1”), and (2) sales of FSAB-produced SSWR to its U.S. affiliate SMT U.S. (which further manufactured the SSWR into wire products for sale to its unaffiliated U.S. customers) (“U.S. Channel 2”). We compared the selling activities performed in each channel, and found that certain selling functions (
With respect to the home market, FSAB reported one channel of distribution (
Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for home market sales are either performed at the same degree of intensity as, or vary only slightly from, the selling functions performed for U.S. sales. Specifically, we found that two of the four selling functions (
In the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of October 31, 2006, the date this review was initiated, we found that FSAB had made sales below the cost of production (“COP”).
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated FSAB's COP based on the sum of FSAB's costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest expenses (
On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges and billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) or the Act: (1) whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of FSAB's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
We calculated NV based on delivered prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges) to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight (from the plant to the customer) and inland insurance, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made deductions from the starting price for credit, warranty, and other direct selling expenses, under section 773 of the Act.
We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which states that CV shall be based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the submitted CV information.
We based NV on CV for comparison to certain U.S. sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For comparisons to FSAB's CEP sales, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006, is as follows:
The Department will disclose to the parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the publication date of this notice.
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
For assessment purposes, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. However, for subject merchandise produced by FSAB but imported by its U.S. affiliate, SMT U.S., we do not have the actual entered value. Therefore, for those entries of subject merchandise imported by SMT U.S., we will calculate the importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
Pursuant to the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Notice, Request for Nominations and Expressions of Interest
Pursuant to Section 2201(c) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, ___(2007) (Act), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are establishing the Joint Advisory Committee on Communications Capabilities of Emergency Medical and Public Health Care Facilities (Committee). By February 4, 2008, the Committee is to assess and submit a report to Congress on the communications capabilities and needs of emergency medical and public health care facilities and the options to accommodate growth of communications services and to improve integration of communications systems used by such facilities. NTIA and FCC are requesting nominations from interested organizations of qualified individuals, and the submission of expressions of interest from individuals who desire to serve as members of the Committee.
Nominations and expressions of interest must be delivered or electronically transmitted on or before September 12, 2007. Nominations or expressions of interest received after this date might not be considered.
Nominations and expressions of interest should be delivered to the attention of Eric Werner, Senior Advisor, Office of the Assistant Secretary, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4898, Washington DC, 20230; by facsimile transmission to (202) 501-0536; or by electronic mail to:
Eric Werner at (202) 482-0014 or ewerner@ntia.doc.gov; or Lisa M. Fowlkes at (202) 418-7452 or lisa.fowlkes@fcc.gov.
On August 3, 2007, the President signed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-53 (Act). Section 2201(c) of the Act requires the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to establish a joint advisory committee to examine the communications capabilities and needs of emergency medical and public health care facilities. According to the Act, the Committee will assess the following: (1) Specific communications capabilities and needs of emergency medical and public health care facilities, including the improvement of basic voice, data, and broadband capabilities; (2) options to accommodate growth of basic and emerging communications services used by emergency medical and public health care facilities; and (3) options to improve integration of communications systems used by emergency medical and public health care facilities with existing or future emergency communications networks. Pursuant to the Act, the Committee will report its findings to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, no later than February 4, 2008.
The Act also requires that the Committee be composed of individuals with expertise in communications technologies and emergency medical and public health care, including representatives of Federal, State, and local governments, industry and non-profit health organizations, and academia and educational institutions. NTIA and FCC intend to appoint representatives from a balanced cross-section of stakeholder interests as required by the Act. Accordingly, the NTIA and FCC seek qualified individuals with expertise in communications technologies and/or emergency medical and public health care and that are capable of representing the policy and/or technical issues relevant to the work of the Committee.
It is anticipated that the Committee will be comprised of 20-25 individuals. Members will be appointed for a term of six months. Depending upon the nature of the appointment, some members of the Committee may be required to submit certain confidential financial disclosures as a part of the appointment process. Individuals who would not be prepared to furnish such information, if required, should not submit their names for consideration. Members will serve without compensation and neither travel nor per diem will be paid. Members must also be willing and able to dedicate substantial time to the work of this Committee during the appointment.
Nominations and expressions of interest should include a resume or curriculum vita, and should also include a statement summarizing the individual's qualifications and identifying the sector or interest for which the individual has expertise. Individuals should also have substantial experience (5 or more years) in the communications technologies and/or emergency medical and public health care sectors relevant for this Committee's work.
Please note this Notice is not intended to be the exclusive method by which NTIA and FCC are soliciting nominations and expressions of interest and identifying qualified individuals. However, all candidates for membership on the Committee will be subject to the same evaluation criteria.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
3 p.m., Monday, September 24, 2007.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor, Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Enforcement Matters.
Contact Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
2 p.m., Wednesday, September 12, 2007.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Enforcement Matters.
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida have established interim targets for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as required by section 385.39(c) of the Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The purpose of the interim targets is to evaluate progress towards other water related needs of the region provided for in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan throughout the implementation process. The parties have chosen to memorialize the proposed interim targets in an Interim Targets Agreement.
Copies of the Interim Targets Agreement can be obtained by request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, RECOVER, ATTN: Rebecca Weiss, 701 San Marco Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32207 or by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
Rebecca Weiss, (904) 232-1577.
Section 385.39(c) of the Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan sets forth the process for establishing the interim targets for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This section provides that the interim targets be developed by the Secretary of the Army and the governor of the State of Florida in consultation with the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and other Federal, State, and local agencies, and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. In considering the interim targets, the Secretary of the Army and the Governor of the State of Florida are required to consider the technical recommendations of RECOVER and any modifications to those recommendations by the Corps of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management District. The Programmatic Regulations require that the Secretary of the Army afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed Interim Targets Agreement prior to its approval and notice in the
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior and the State of Florida have established the interim goals for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan through the Interim Goals Agreement as required by section 385.38(d) of the Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Interim goals are a mean by which restoration success of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan may be evaluated at specific points by agency managers, the State of Florida, the Congress throughout the overall planning and implementation process. This intergovernmental Agreement establishing the interim goals was signed on April 27, 2007.
A copy of the Interim Goals Agreement can be obtained by request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, RECOVER, ATTN: Rebecca Weiss, 701 San Marco Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32207-8175 or by e-mail to:
Rebecca Weiss, (904) 232-1577.
Section 385.38(d) of the Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Notice of Intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the potential social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed construction of a coal-fired electrical generating station with associated facilities, a rail line extension and transmission corridor by the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper), in the vicinity of the Bostic Landing on the Great Pee Dee River, in Florence County, South Carolina. The EIS will assess potential effects of a range of alternatives, including an alternative proposed in the Federal permit application.
For further information and/or questions about the proposed project and EIS, please contact Dr. Richard Darden, Project Manager, by telephone: 843-329-8043 or toll free 1-866-329-8187, or by mail: CESAC-RE-P, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403. For inquiries from the media, please contact the Corps, Charleston District Public Affairs Officer (PAO), Ms. Connie Gillette by telephone: (843) 329-8123.
An application for a Department of the Army permit was submitted by Santee Cooper pursuant to section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) on December 11, 2006 and was advertised in a local public notice, P/N # SAC 2006-3574-SIB, on December 22, 2006. The public notice is available on Charleston District's public Web site at
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Jacksonville District issued a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on August 17, 2007 to evaluate potential impacts of further rock mining within wetlands in western Miami-Dade County, FL. In order to accept public comments on the Draft SEIS, the Corps has scheduled a public meeting. The Corps invites Federal agencies, American Indian Tribal Nations, state and local governments, and other interested private organizations and parties to attend the public meeting and to comment on the draft SEIS.
The Corps plans to hold a public meeting on September 18, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at the Miami Dade Fire Rescue Headquarters, 9300 NW 41st Street, Doral, FL 33178. (786) 331-5000.
Ms. Leah Oberlin, (561) 472-3506.
The Corps will provide additional notification of the meeting time and location through newspaper advertisements and other means. Following a short presentation on the draft SEIS, verbal and written comments on the draft SEIS will be accepted. A transcript of verbal comments will be generated to ensure accuracy. A spanish language translator will be available. To submit comments on the draft SEIS or to request copies of materials related to this effort as they become available to the public, contact: Ms. Leah Oberlin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division, Palm Beach Gardens Regulatory Office, 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 500, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, 33410, by e-mail at
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 9, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 6, 2007.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 9, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Take notice that on August 22, 2007, Corona Energy Partners, Ltd. (Corona) pursuant to 18 CFR 292.205(c), filed a request for a temporary limited waiver of the Commission's operating and efficiency standards in 18 CFR 292.205(a)(2), with respect to the qualifying status of its cogeneration facility located in the City of Corona, Riverside County, California, for calendar years 2007 and 2008.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the above-referenced pipelines tendered for filing their tariff sheets respectively, pursuant to section 154.402 of the Commission's Regulations to reflect the Commission's change in the unit rate for the Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) surcharge to be applied to rates for recovery of 2007 Annual Charges pursuant to Order No. 472, in Docket no. RM87-3-000. The proposed effective date of the tariff sheets is October 1, 2007.
The above-referenced pipelines states that the purpose of their filings is to reflect the revised ACA effective for the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 2007. The pipelines states that their tariff sheets reflect a increase of $.0003 per Dth from $.0016 per Dth in the ACA adjustment surcharge, resulting in a new ACA rate of $.0019 Dth as specified by the Commission in its invoice dated June 28, 2007 for the Annual Charge Billing—Fiscal Year 2007.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
Any person desiring to become a party in any of the listed dockets must file a separate motion to intervene in each docket for which they wish party status.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on August 24, 2007, Egan Hub Storage, LLC (Egan Hub) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A of the filing to be effective September 26, 2007.
Egan Hub states that the purpose of this filing is to: (i) Implement new enhanced park and loan services; (ii) revise the contracting provisions in the Egan Hub Tariff to promote administrative efficiency, further automate the process for requesting and contracting for service, and ensure Egan Hub's continued compliance with Commission regulations; (iii) clarify one aspect of Egan Hub's creditworthiness provisions; and (iv) modify various exhibits to the forms of service agreements in order to accurately reflect the specific details of each transaction.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on August 24, 2007, Energy West Development, Inc. (Energy West) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 29, become effective September 1, 2005.
Energy West states that the filing is being made in compliance filing with the Letter Order issued in this docket on August 10, 2007.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on August 24, 2007, Energy West Development, Inc. (Energy West) tendered as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 26 and Second Revised Sheet No. 28, to be effective August 10, 2007.
Energy West states that the filing is being made in compliance filing with the Letter Order issued in this docket on August 10, 2007. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on August 24, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1 First Revised Second Revised Sheet No. 445, to be effective September 24, 2007.
Northern states that it is filing the above referenced tariff sheet to provide PDD shippers with increased flexibility regarding their deferred delivery points.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on July 13, 2007, PJM Transmission Owners, acting through the Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement, jointly submitted a filing in compliance with Paragraph 263 of Order No. 890.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on August 23, 2007, Pipeline Company (Questar Pipeline), and Questar Gas Company (Questar Gas) (the Applicants), 180 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, jointly filed in Docket No. CP07-438-000, an application, pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), seeking authority for Questar Pipeline to abandon Jurisdictional Lateral (JL) 4, by sale, to Questar Gas. The applicants also seek a determination that, upon acquisition, the JL 4 facilities will be considered non-jurisdictional under section 1(b) of the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Specifically, the JL 4 is an 8-inch diameter pipeline that extends approximately 14.63 miles northeast from Questar Pipeline's existing North Baxter Compressor Station delivery area to Questar Pipeline's Nightingale Compressor Station. This pipeline is located on Questar Pipeline's northern transmission system in the vicinity of Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, Wyoming.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to L. Bradley Burton, Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs, Questar Pipeline Company, 180 East 100 South, P.O. Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0360, at (801) 324-2459, or by fax at (801) 324-5834, or e-mail
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on August 17, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP06-421-002, a petition to amend the Commission order issued April 12, 2007, pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to: (i) Revise the estimated cost of the Potomac Expansion Project (Project) facilities that are anticipated to be placed into service November 1, 2007; (ii) include in the cost of the Project the estimated cost associated with the facility modifications in Fairfax County, Virginia, required by the Commission in the certificate order (the piggable “Y” facilities) which facilities are expected to be in-service October 1, 2008; (iii) revise the initial recourse rates for the Project to reflect the increased cost of Project facilities; and (iv) phase-in the initial recourse rates for the Project to reflect the cost of facilities expected to be placed into service November 1, 2007 and the additional costs associated with the piggable “Y” facilities that are expected to be placed into service October 1, 2008, all as more fully set forth in the petition to amend which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any questions regarding this petition should be directed to Marg Camardello, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251 at (713) 215-3380.
Pursuant to § 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings in Docket No. CP06-421-002 should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of, or in opposition to, this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental comments will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Storage Factory Project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) in Clinton, Elk, and Tioga Counties, Pennsylvania. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on September 28, 2007.
Comments may be submitted in written or verbal form. Further details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. In lieu of sending written comments, you may choose to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled as follows:
This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a Dominion representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, Dominion could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?” addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (
The Storage Factory Project would involve the leaching of two salt caverns
Dominion is also proposing on-system enhancements to other existing facilities in Pennsylvania, including piping upgrades to the Sabinsville Storage Pool. Proposed modifications to transmission related facilities include additional compression at Dominion's existing Ardell Station (approximately 4,000 horsepower located in Elk County, Pennsylvania) and approximately 7.5 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline looping in Clinton County.
The Storage Factory Project is in the preliminary design state. Dominion anticipates filing an application with the FERC in March 2008 and to seek the Commission's approval in time for Dominion to begin construction by March 2009, with a proposed in-service date of January 2014.
Project location maps are included in Appendix A.
The Storage Factory Project is in the preliminary planning stage. The precise facility design, pipeline route, rights-of-way, and other details have not yet been finalized. Specific information on the proposed project location and the land used by it will be made available to the public when it is finalized.
Construction of the proposed project would affect a total of about 250.7 acres during construction. Following construction, about 160 acres would be allowed to revert to its previous conditions. Disturbance associated with aboveground facilities would permanently impact 51.2 acres of land.
Dominion proposes to construct its pipeline in Clinton County and the pipelines associated with the Sabinsville Storage Pool in existing rights-of-way. Dominion has indicated that it would seek 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the pipelines associated with the leaching and gas storage areas.
For this project, the FERC staff has initiated its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review prior to receiving the application. The purpose of the Commission's Pre-Filing Process is to involve interested stakeholders early in project planning and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF07-12-000) has been established to place information filed by Dominion, and related documents issued by the Commission, into the public record. Once a formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be established. The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EA which will satisfy the requirements of NEPA.
The NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues that should be addressed in the EA. We will consider all comments received during scoping in the preparation of the EA.
Our independent analysis and evaluation of the issues will be included in the EA. The EA will also include possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and we will make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas of concern. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; affected landowners; Native American tribes; libraries, and newspapers; and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 30-day comment period will be allotted for review of the EA. We will consider all comments submitted on the EA in any Commission Order that is issued for the project.
We are currently involved in discussions with other jurisdictional agencies to identify their issues and concerns. These agencies include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. EPA Region III Groundwater and Enforcement Branch, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
By this notice, we are asking these and other federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project. We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the project site and the facility information provided by Iroquois. This preliminary list of issues and potential impacts may change based on your comments and our analysis.
• Impacts on perennial and intermittent streams and waterbodies.
• Water withdrawals from Cowanesque Reservoir or other water source.
• Evaluation of temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands and development of appropriate mitigation.
• Effect on federally and state-listed species.
• Impacts on existing land uses.
• Visual effects of the aboveground facilities on surrounding areas.
• Impacts on local air and noise quality associated with construction and operation.
• Public safety and potential hazards associated with the transport of natural gas and the proposed compressor facilities.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1;
• Reference Docket No. PF07-12-000;
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before September 28, 2007.
Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at
The public scoping meeting (date, time, and location is listed above) is designed to provide state and local agencies, interested groups, affected landowners, and the general public with another opportunity to offer your comments on the project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental issues they believe should be addressed in the EA. A transcript of each meeting will be made so that your comments will be accurately recorded.
All public meetings will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Once Dominion formally files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.
On September 18, 2007, the OEP staff will conduct a pre-certification site visit of the proposed Storage Factory Project. We will view Dominion's proposed pipeline route, route variations, and aboveground facilities that are being considered for the proposed project. Staff will tour the proposed project area by automobile and on foot. Representatives of Dominion will accompany the OEP staff.
All interested parties may attend the site visit. Those planning to attend must provide their own transportation. If you are interested in attending the site visit, please meet us at 1 p.m. in the parking lot of the Lawrenceville Fire Department at 9-11 Mechanic St., Lawrenceville, PA 16901.
For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372).
An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. If you do not return the attached form (Appendix B), you will be removed from the Commission's environmental mailing list. All individuals who provide written comments, attend the scoping meeting, or return the Information Request will remain on our environmental mailing list for this project.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on the FERC Internet Web site (
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, Dominion has established an Internet Web site for this project at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project, involving construction and operation of natural gas facilities by Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC (Kinder Morgan) in Weld County, Colorado. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on October 1, 2007. Details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a Kinder Morgan representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?” addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (
With this notice, we
Kinder Morgan seeks authorization to install about 41.4 miles of 12-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline from the existing Rockport Cheyenne Hub to a point on the west side of the City of Greeley, Colorado. All construction would be within Weld County, Colorado. The project would create about 55,000 decatherms per day of pipeline capacity from Kinder Morgan's Cheyenne Hub to distribution points in the Greeley market area. Kinder Morgan would construct four new meter stations (ranging in size from 0.18 acre to 0.92 acre) to distribute the natural gas to this market area. Further, a 12-inch-diamater pig launcher and pig receiver
On behalf of a non-jurisdictional company, Atmos Energy Corporation (a local distribution company), Kinder Morgan would construct five lateral distribution pipelines of various diameters (ranging from 6 to 12 inches) totaling about 10.8 miles, and eight regulator facilities located within Kinder Morgan's proposed meter stations. The owner and operator of these laterals and regulator facilities would be Atmos Energy Corporation. Figure 1 in Appendix A is a detailed map identifying all facilities associated with this project.
Construction of the proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would affect a total of about 501.6 acres during construction. Following construction, about 246.1 acres would be allowed to revert to its previous conditions. Disturbance associated with aboveground facilities would permanently disturb 4.6 acres of land.
Kinder Morgan would construct its 12-inch-diameter pipeline in a 90-foot-wide construction right-of-way and laterals within a 40-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Kinder Morgan would maintain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation and maintenance of its mainline and Atmos Energy Corporation would maintain a 20-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. Kinder Morgan's proposed mainline would overlap existing rights-of-way for about 94 percent of the route.
We are preparing the EA to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils.
• Water resources.
• Wetlands.
• Land use and visual quality.
• Cultural resources.
• Vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife (including threatened and endangered species).
• Air quality and noise.
• Reliability and safety.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published for distribution and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups; interested individuals; affected landowners; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1;
• Reference Docket No. CP07-430-000;
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before October 1, 2007.
Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18 Code of Federal
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor, you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) (see Appendix B).
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered.
An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. If you do not return the attached form (Appendix C), you will be removed from the Commission's environmental mailing list.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on the FERC Internet Web site (
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Please include the project number (P-2197) on any comments or motions filed. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Any filing must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers.
p.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Pursuant to 18 CFR 5.3(a)(2), Reedsport OPT Wave Park, LLC filed a request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on July 2, 2007, and provided public notice of this request on August 2, 2007. With this notice, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approves Reedsport OPT Wave Park, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k.
l. With this notice, we are designating Reedsport OPT Wave Park, LLC, as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Reedsport OPT Wave Park, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) with the Commission pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
Register online at
Take notice that a technical conference will be held in the above-referenced proceedings on Thursday, September 6, 2007 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in Room 10A-07, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The conference will address mitigation in the Phoenix Valley.
All interested parties and staff are permitted to attend the technical conference.
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
For further information please contact Marie Tansioco at (202) 502-8846 or e-mail
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 6, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Jim O'Leary, Office of Solid Waste, (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-0441; fax number: 703-308-0514; e-mail address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Finally, section 3017 of RCRA specifies requirements for individuals exporting hazardous waste from the United States, including a notification of the intent to export, and an annual report summarizing the types, quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination of all exported hazardous waste.
This ICR addresses the following categories of informational requirements in part 262: pre-transport requirements for both large (LQG) and small (SQG) quantity generators; air emission standards requirements for LQGs (referenced in 40 CFR Part 265, Subparts I and J); recordkeeping and reporting requirements for LQGs and SQGs; and export requirements for LQGs and SQGs (i.e., notification of intent to export and annual reporting).
This collection of information is necessary to help generators and EPA: (1) Identify and understand the waste streams being generated and the hazards associated with them; (2) determine whether employees have acquired the necessary expertise to perform their jobs; and (3) determine whether LQGs have developed adequate procedures to respond to unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to air, soil, or surface water. This information is also needed to help EPA determine whether tank systems are operated in a manner that is fully protective of human health and the environment and to ensure that releases to the environment are managed quickly and efficiently.
Additionally, this information contributes to EPA's goal of preventing contamination of the environment from hazardous waste accumulation practices, including contamination from equipment leaks and process vents. Export information is needed to ensure that: (1) foreign governments consent to U.S. exported wastes; (2) exported waste is actually managed at facilities listed in the original notifications; and (3) documents are available for compliance audits and enforcement actions. In general, these requirements contribute to EPA's goal of preventing contamination of the environment.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 6, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0418, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Chichang Chen, Office of Solid Waste, (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-0441; fax number: 703-308-0514; e-mail address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0418, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
40 CFR 260.30-260.31, and 260.33 comprise the standards, criteria, and procedures for variances from classification as a solid waste for three types of materials, materials that are collected speculatively without sufficient amounts being recycled; materials that are reclaimed and then reused within the original primary production process in which they were generated; and materials which have been reclaimed, but must be reclaimed further before the materials are completely recovered. Under 40 CFR 260.32 and 260.33 are regulations governing the procedures and criteria for obtaining a variance for classification as a boiler. This variance is available to owners or operators of enclosed flame combustion devices.
40 CFR 261.3 and 261.4 contain provisions that allow generators to obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for certain types of wastes. Facilities applying for these exclusions must submit a notification, or supporting information and/or keep detailed records. Under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv), generators may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for wastewater mixtures subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Under § 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C), generators may obtain an exclusion for certain non-wastewater residues resulting from high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) processing of K061, K062 and F006 waste. Also, under § 261.4(a)(20)(ii)(A), generators and intermediate handlers may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for zinc-bearing hazardous secondary materials that are to be incorporated into zinc fertilizers. In addition, under § 261.4(b)(6), generators of chromium-containing waste may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion under certain conditions.
Also addressed under this section is the shipment of samples between generators and laboratories for the purpose of testing to determine their characteristics or composition. Sample handlers who are not subject to DOT or USPS shipping requirements must comply with the information requirements of § 261.4(d)(2).
When intended for treatability studies, hazardous waste otherwise subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA is exempted from these regulations, provided that the requirements in § 261.4(e)-(f) are met, including the following information requests: initial notification, record keeping, reporting, and final notification. In addition, generators and collectors of treatability study samples also may request quantity limit increases and time extensions, as specified in § 261.4(e)(3).
40 CFR 261.31(b)(2)(ii) governs procedures and informational requirements for generators and treatment, storage and disposal facilities to obtain exemptions from listing as F037 and F038 wastes. Also under this section are regulations promulgated in 1990 under § 261.35(b) and (c) governing procedures and information requirements for the cleaning or replacement of all process equipment that may have come into contact with chlorophenolic formulations or constituents thereof, including, but not limited to, treatment cylinders, sumps, tanks, piping systems, drip pads, fork lifts, and trams.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) Process Improvement Workgroup will hold its ninth public meeting on September 27, 2007. An agenda for this meeting is being developed, and will be posted on EPA's website. The workgroup is developing advice and recommendations on topics related to EPA's registration process.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 27, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA.
Elizabeth Leovey, Immediate Office, 7501P, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7328; fax number: (703) 308-4776; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to persons who are concerned about implementation of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Other potentially affected entities may include but are not limited to agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry trade associations; environmental, consumer and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; pest consultants; State, local and tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; food processors; and the public. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the American food supply, protection and education of those who apply or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products, and the general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential risks posed by pesticides. The PPDC was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995 for a 2-year term and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. The PPDC provides advice and recommendations to OPP on a broad range of pesticide regulatory, policy, and program implementation issues that are associated with evaluating and reducing risks from the use of pesticides. The following sectors are represented on the PPDC: Pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental/public interest and consumer groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide user, grower and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/Tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations. Copies of the PPDC charter are filed with appropriate committees of Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request. Copies of the minutes of past meetings of this workgroup are available on the internet at
This meeting will be open to the public and seating is available on a first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to register in advance of the meeting. Opportunity will be provided for questions and comments by the public. Any person
Environmental protection.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (9)(A)(ii) (9)(B), and (c)(10) Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7122.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007, to consider the following matters:
Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.
Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.
Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed FDIC Liquidation Investment Policy.
Memorandum and resolution re: Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Small Insured Depository Institutions and U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) to make necessary arrangements.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7122.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 to be held at the conclusion of the open meeting.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Advisory Opinion 2007-12: Tyco International Management Company and Tyco International Management Company Political Action Committee, by counsel, Jan W. Baran and D. Mark Renaud.
Management and Administrative Matters.
Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The open meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12, 2007. The closed portion of the meeting will follow immediately the open portion of the meeting.
Board Room, First Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
The first portion of the meeting will be open to the public. The final portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Fiscal Year 2008 Agency Budget.
Periodic Update of Examination Program Development and Supervisory Findings.
Shelia Willis, Paralegal Specialist, Office of General Counsel, at 202-408-2876 or
By the Federal Housing Finance Board.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 4, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 4, 2007.
In accordance with § 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on August 7, 2007.
The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with maintaining the federal funds rate at an average of around 5
By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, August 30, 2007.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the FTC Performance Review Board
Karen Leydon, Director of Human Resources, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2633.
Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive’s performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to the Chairman.
The following individuals have been designated to serve on the Commission’s Performance Review Board:
By direction of the Commission.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the following committee meeting:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2009.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
There will not be open comments period. However, written comments should be submitted to the contact person below in advance of the meeting.
Dr. Lewis V. Wade, Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, telephone 513.533.6825, fax 513.533.6826.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the closeout of FY07. The Board must conduct an oversight view of FY07 materials before FY08.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on November 6, 2007.
CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development—A, Attention: Melissa Musotto, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, HHS.
Notice of Amended System of Records.
In accordance with the requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is publishing notice of its amendment of its system of records entitled “The Location and Collection System,” No. 09-90-0074.
HHS invites interested parties to submit comments on the proposed notice October 9, 2007. As required by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(r)), HHS on August 29, 2007 sent a report of an Amended System to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget. The amendments described in this notice are effective upon publication unless HHS receives comments that would result in a contrary determination.
Please address comments to: Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Automation and Program Operations, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447, (202) 401-5439.
Comments received will be available for inspection at the address above from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Linda Deimeke, Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Automation and Program Operations, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447, (202) 401-5439.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is amending one of its Systems of Records, “The Location and Collection System of Records” (LCS), No. 09-90-0074, last published at 70 FR 21200 on April 25, 2005.
Consistent with section 452 of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by section 7306 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law 109-171, the LCS may be used to compare information concerning individuals owing past-due support with information maintained by insurers (or their agents) concerning insurance claims, settlements, awards, and payments and furnish information resulting from the data matches to the State agencies responsible for collecting child support from the individuals. Section 7306 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 amended section 452 of the Act to add a new subsection (l). A technical amendment is necessary to designate this provision as subsection (m).
Location and Collection System of Records, HHS, OCSE.
None.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447; Social Security Administration, 6200 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235.
Records are maintained to locate individuals for the purpose of establishing parentage, establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations, or enforcing child custody or visitation orders, and may include (1) information on, or facilitate the discovery of, or the location of any individuals: (A) Who are under an obligation to pay child support or provide child custody or visitation rights; (B) against whom such an obligation is sought; (C) to whom such an obligation is owed including the individual's Social Security Number (or numbers) (SSN), most recent address, and the name, address, and employer identification number of the individual's employer; and (D) who have or may have parental rights with respect to a child; (2) information on the individual's wages (or other income) from, and benefits of, employment (including rights to enrollment in group health care coverage); (3) information on the type, status, and amount of any assets or debts owed to or by such an individual; and (4) information on certain Federal disbursements payable to a delinquent obligor that may be offset for the purpose of collecting past-due child support.
Specific records retained in the Location and Collection System of Records (LCS) system are: The name of noncustodial or custodial parent or child, Social Security Number (SSN) (when available), date of birth, place of
Legal authority for maintenance of the system is contained in sections 452 and 453 of the Social Security Act that require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish and conduct the Federal Parent Locator Service, a computerized national location network, which provides location and asset information, including addresses and SSN(s) to authorized persons, primarily for the purposes of establishing and collecting child support obligations.
The primary purpose of the LCS is to improve States' abilities to locate parents and collect child support.
The routine uses of records maintained in the LCS are as follows: (1) Request the most recent home and employment addresses and SSN of the noncustodial or custodial parents from any State or Federal Government department, agency or instrumentality that might have such information in its records; (2) provide the most recent home and employment addresses and SSN to State Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies under agreements covered by section 463 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 663) for the purpose of locating noncustodial parents or children in connection with activities by State courts and Federal attorneys and agents charged with making or enforcing child custody determinations or conducting investigations, enforcement proceedings or prosecutions concerning the unlawful taking or restraint of children; (3) provide the most recent home and employment addresses and SSN to agents and attorneys of the United States, involved in activities in States that do not have agreements under section 463 of the Act for purposes of locating noncustodial parents or children in connection with Federal investigations, enforcement proceedings or prosecutions involving the unlawful taking or restraint of children; (4) provide to the State Department the name and SSN of noncustodial parents in international child support cases, and in cases involving The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; (5) provide to State agencies data in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) portion of this system for the purpose of administering the CSE program and the TANF program; (6) provide to the Commissioner of Social Security information for the purposes of verifying reported SSNs, verifying eligibility and/or payment amounts under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, and for other purposes; (7) provide to the Secretary of the Treasury information in the NDNH portion of this system for purposes of administering advance payments of the earned income tax credit and verifying a claim with respect to employment in a tax return; (8) provide to researchers new hire data for research efforts that would contribute to the TANF and CSE programs. Information disclosed may not contain personal identifiers; (9) provide to State CSE agencies, or any agent of an agency that is under contract with the State CSE agency, information that will assist in locating individuals for the purposes of establishing paternity and for establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations; (10) disclose to authorized persons as defined in section 463(d)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 663(d)(2)) records for the purpose of locating individuals and enforcing child custody and visitation orders; (11) disclose to the State agency administering the Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, Food Stamp, SSI and territorial cash assistance programs new hire information for income eligibility verification; (12) disclose to State agencies administering unemployment and worker's compensation programs new hire information to assist in determining the allowability of claims; (13) disclose information to the Treasury Department in order to collect past due child support obligation via offset of tax refunds and certain Federal payments such as: Federal salary, wage
None.
LCS records are maintained on disc, computer tape, and hard copy.
System records can be accessed by either State assigned case identification number or SSN.
1. Authorized Users: All requests from the State IV-D Agency must certify that: (1) They are being made to locate noncustodial and custodial parents for the purpose of establishing paternity or securing child support, or in cases involving parental kidnapping or child custody and visitation determinations and for no other purposes; (2) the State IV-D agency has in effect protective measures to safeguard the personal information being transferred and received from the Federal Parent Locator Service; and (3) the State IV-D Agency will use or disclose this information for the purposes prescribed in 45 CFR 303.70.
2. Physical Safeguards: For computerized records electronically transmitted between Central Office and field office locations (including organizations administering HHS programs under contractual agreements), safeguards include a lock/unlock password system. All input documents will be inventoried and accounted for. All inputs and outputs will be stored in a locked receptacle in a locked room. All outputs will be labeled “For Official Use Only” and treated accordingly.
3. Procedural and Technical Safeguards: All Federal and State personnel and contractors are required to take a nondisclosure oath. A password is required to access the terminal. All microfilm and paper files are accessible only by authorized personnel who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties. These practices are in compliance with the standards of Chapter 45-13 of the HHS General Administration Manual, “Safeguarding Records Contained in Systems of Records,” and the Department's Automated Information System Security Program Handbook.
Quarterly wage data and unemployment data supplied to the LCS that, within 12 months, has not produced a match as a result of any information comparison will not thereafter be used for child support enforcement purposes. Quarterly wages and unemployment data and new hire information will be deleted from the database 24 months after the date of entry. An information comparison will be retained for 24 months. Sample data will be retained only long enough to complete research authorized under section 453(j)(5) of the Act. Tax refund and administrative offset information will be maintained for six years in an active master file for purposes of collection and adjustment. After this time, records of cases for which there was no collection will be destroyed. Records of cases with a collection will be stored on-line in an inactive master file. Records pertaining to passport denial will be updated and/or deleted as obligors meet satisfactory restitution or other State approved arrangements. Records of information provided to authorized users will be maintained only long enough to communicate the information to the appropriate State or Federal agent. Thereafter, the information provided will be destroyed. However, records pertaining to the disclosures, which include information provided by States, Federal agencies contacted, and an indication of the type(s) of information returned, will be stored on a history tape and in hard copy for five years and then destroyed. Records of information provided by financial institutions and insurers (or their agents) for the purpose of facilitating matches will be maintained only long enough to communicate the information to the appropriate State agent. Thereafter, the information provided will be destroyed. However, records pertaining to the disclosures, which include information provided by States, Federal agencies contacted, and an indication of the type(s) of information returned, will be stored on a history tape and in hard copy for five years and then destroyed.
Director, Division of Federal Systems, Office of Automation and Program Operations, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor East, Washington, DC 20447.
To determine if a record exists, write to the Systems Manager at the address listed above. The Privacy Act provides that, except under certain conditions specified in the law, only the subject of the records may have access to them. All requests must be submitted in the following manner: Identify the system of records you wish to have searched, have your request notarized to verify your identity, and indicate that you are aware that the knowing and willful request for or acquisition of a Privacy Act record under false pretenses is a criminal offense subject to a $10,000 fine. Your letter must also provide sufficient particulars to enable OCSE to distinguish between records on subject individuals with the same name.
Write to the Systems Manager specified above to attain access to records. Requesters should provide a
Contact the official at the address specified under System Manager above, and identify the record and specify the information to be contested and corrective action sought with supporting justification to show how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant.
Information is obtained from departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of the United States or any State and from multistate financial institutions and insurers (or their agents).
None.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the University System of Maryland to establish terms of collaboration to support shared interests that can proceed through a variety of programs including collaborative research, public outreach, cooperative international initiatives, interdisciplinary training, and exchange of scientists and staff through sabbaticals, postdoctoral fellowships, and student internships.
The agreement became effective July 12, 2007.
Mary I. Poos, Office of External Relations (HF-10), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-2825.
In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Manufacturing Biological Intermediates and Biological Drug Substances Using Spore-Forming Microorganisms” dated September 2007. The guidance document is intended to provide guidance to manufacturers using spore-forming microorganisms in the production of certain biological products. The guidance document provides recommendations to industry in response to changes made to the requirements for spore-forming microorganisms to allow greater flexibility in manufacturing. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Manufacturing Biological Drug Substances, Intermediates, or Products Using Spore-Forming Microorganisms” dated February 2005.
Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Training and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to either
Valerie A. Butler, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Manufacturing Biological Intermediates and Biological Drug Substances Using Spore-Forming Microorganisms” dated September 2007. The document provides guidance to manufacturers using spore-forming microorganisms in the production of certain biological products. The guidance document provides recommendations to industry in response to changes made to the requirements for spore-forming microorganisms to allow greater flexibility in manufacturing.
In the
In the
The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial
This meeting is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to timing limitations imposed by administrative matters.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
September 7, 2007.
Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability for review and comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft recovery plan for the Columbia Basin distinct population segment of the pygmy rabbit for public review and comment.
We must receive any comments on the draft recovery plan on or before November 6, 2007.
The draft recovery plan and reference materials are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206 (Telephone: 509-891-6839). Submitted comments regarding the draft recovery plan will also be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours following the public review and comment period. Requests for copies of the draft recovery plan and submission of written comments or materials regarding the plan should be addressed to the Field Supervisor at the above address. An electronic copy of the draft recovery plan is also available at:
Chris Warren, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, by writing to the above address, by calling 509-893-8020, or by electronic mail at:
Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to develop and implement recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened, unless such plans will not promote the conservation of the species. We and the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, have been delegated responsibility for administering the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that public notice, and an opportunity for public review and comment, be provided during development of recovery plans. We will consider all information presented during the public comment period on each new or revised recovery plan. Substantive comments may or may not result in changes to a recovery plan. However, any substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation will be forwarded to appropriate Federal agencies or other interested entities so that they can take these comments into account during the implementation of their respective management programs. Individual responses to submitted comments will not be provided.
The pygmy rabbit is the smallest rabbit species in North America, with adult lengths of under 1 foot and weights of less than 1 pound. The pygmy rabbit is distinguishable from other rabbit species by its small size, short ears, small hind legs, and lack of white on the tail. Historically, pygmy rabbits were found throughout the semi-arid sagebrush steppe biome of the Great Basin and adjacent intermountain regions of the western United States, including portions of Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington. Within this broad biome, pygmy rabbits are typically found in habitat types that include tall, dense stands of sagebrush (
The pygmy rabbit has been present within the Columbia Basin, a geographic area that extends from northern Oregon through central Washington, for over 100,000 years. This distinct population segment of the pygmy rabbit, which is referred to as the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit and is the subject of this draft recovery plan, is believed to have been disjunct from the remainder of the species' range for at least 10,000 years, as suggested by the fossil record, and possibly as long as 40,000 to 115,000 years, as suggested by population genetic analyses. Museum specimens and sighting records indicate that during the first half of the 20th century, the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit likely occurred in portions of six Washington counties, including Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, Adams, Franklin, and Benton.
Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits were thought to be extirpated from Washington during the mid-1900s, however, they were again located in the State in 1979. Intensive surveys in 1987 and 1988 discovered five small subpopulations in southern Douglas County; three occurred on State lands and two on private lands. The number of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit subpopulations and active burrows in Washington has declined dramatically over the past decade. In addition, surveys of the last known subpopulation conducted from 2004 through 2006 did not detect any animals, indicating that the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit may have been extirpated from the wild. We listed this distinct population segment under emergency provisions of the Act in 2001, and fully listed it as endangered in 2003, without critical habitat.
Large-scale loss and fragmentation of native shrub-steppe habitats, primarily for agricultural development, likely played a primary role in the long-term decline of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit. Imminent threats related to small population size include chance environmental events (e.g., extreme weather), catastrophic habitat loss or resource failure (e.g., from wildfire),
In 2001, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife began a captive breeding program for the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit. Ultimately, the goal of the captive breeding program is to facilitate future releases of captive-bred animals at suitable sites within the population's historical distribution to begin the process of its recovery in the wild. However, the captive purebred Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits did not produce enough offspring to accommodate reintroduction efforts, and only a minimal number of purebred animals have been available since the program's first breeding season in 2002. In addition, the available information indicates that the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit has experienced a loss of genetic diversity as a result of inbreeding and genetic drift. Due to poor demographic, behavioral, physiological, and genetic indicators for pure Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit breeding efforts, intercross matings between Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits and pygmy rabbits of the same taxonomic classification from a discrete population in Idaho were initiated during the 2003 breeding season.
In March, 2007, 20 captive-bred pygmy rabbits were reintroduced to habitats historically occupied by the species within the Columbia Basin of central Washington. These captive-bred animals experienced a high level of predation over the first several weeks following their release. As of May 15, 2007, five of these animals remained alive and they will continue to be monitored throughout the 2007 breeding season. Just prior to the initial release effort, there were 86 individuals included in the captive breeding program, 3 of which were purebred Columbia Basin animals. At least one wild-born, and likely captive bred kit (approximately 1-month old) has been documented at the release site. The remaining captive-bred female was also observed displaying nesting behavior. The balance of the captive population and those recently released to the wild consist of intercross pygmy rabbits. Intercross breeding has helped facilitate genetic restoration of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit and is considered essential for recovery efforts. Currently, proposed measures to recover the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit in the wild include additional releases of captive-bred animals with at least 75 percent Columbia Basin ancestry.
The draft recovery plan proposes a phased approach to recovery implementation: first, removal or abatement of imminent threats to prevent the extinction of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit; second, reestablishment of an appropriate number and distribution of free-ranging subpopulations over the near-term; and third, establishment and protection of a resilient, free-ranging population that could withstand foreseeable long-term threats. A key near-term objective of Federal recovery efforts is to reintroduce Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits to the wild and sufficiently reduce threats to the population to ensure a high probability of its persistence over the foreseeable future. The long-term recovery goal is to increase the number, distribution, and security of free-ranging Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits so that the population may be reclassified as threatened and, ultimately, be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Act. The draft recovery plan identifies the following main actions as necessary to initiate recovery of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit: (1) Manage the captive breeding program; (2) manage genetic characteristics; (3) survey for and monitor free-ranging individuals; (4) reestablish free-ranging subpopulations within their historical distribution; (5) protect free-ranging individuals; (6) manage habitats at recovery emphasis areas to support stable, self-sustaining subpopulations; (7) pursue cooperative agreements with land owners and managers of intervening properties within the population's historical distribution; (8) exchange information with stakeholders and the general public to address concerns and increase support for recovery efforts; (9) secure funding for recovery efforts; and (10) revise the recovery plan as necessary to achieve the phased recovery strategy.
We solicit written comments on the draft recovery plan described in this notice. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered in development of a final recovery plan for the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533 (f).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are reopening the comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed Desert Rock Energy Project and the Navajo Mine Extension Project, San Juan County, New Mexico, for an additional 30 days. The Notice of Availability of the DEIS, published by in the
Written comments for the reopened comment period must arrive by 4 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST), October 9, 2007.
You may mail written comments on the DEIS via U.S. Postal Service first class or priority to Harrilene Yazzie, Regional NEPA Coordinator, Navajo Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup, New Mexico 87305. You may also hand carry, or have written comments delivered by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail or by courier service to Harrilene Yazzie at the Navajo Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 301 W. Hill Street, Gallup, New Mexico 87305. In addition, you may send comments by e-mail to the project Web site,
The DEIS is available for review at the BIA Office, 301 West Hill Street, Gallup, New Mexico. It is also available for review on the project Web site
Harrilene Yazzie, (505) 863-8286.
On June 20 and 22, 2007, the BIA and the EPA, respectively, published notices in the
The DEIS analyzes and discloses probable environmental effects of the proposed Desert Rock Energy Project (or referred to herein as Desert Rock Energy Project or proposed project/action) and the Navajo Mine Extension Project (or referred to herein as the Navajo Mine Extension Project or Area IV North, Area IV South and Area V of the BHP Navajo Coal Company [BNCC] Lease Area).
Together, Sithe Global Power, LLC, by and through the Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC, and Dino Power Authority (DPA), a Navajo Nation enterprise, are proposing to develop and construct the Desert Rock Energy Project. Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC, entered into a development agreement with DPA to develop and construct a coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Reservation. Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC, is a privately held, independent power company and a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. DPA was established by the Navajo Nation Council to develop utility-scale energy projects on behalf of the Navajo Nation for the economic benefit of the Navajo people.
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a coal-fired electrical power plant that would generate up to 1,500 megawatts (MW) of power; the extension of existing surface coal mining operations at the Navajo Mine to provide fuel for the power plant; disposal of coal combustion by-products (CCBs); and mine reclamation operations along with associated mine support facilities and activities. The proposed project also includes a water well field and supply pipeline to the power plant, transmission lines, a receiving electrical station, other upgrades and ancillary facilities required in the production and transmission of electricity, and new access roads.
The proposed project is located approximately 30 miles southwest of Farmington in San Juan County, New Mexico, and is entirely on trust lands within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Nation. The power plant would be constructed on a 592-acre parcel immediately adjacent to, and west of Area IV North of the BNCC Lease Area. The coal fuel supply would be produced from Areas IV South and V of the BNCC Lease Area and transported by conveyor to a proposed coal preparation facility located in Area IV North of the BNCC lease area, near the power plant.
The proposed project requires a long-term business site lease between the Navajo Nation and DPA, and a sublease between DPA and Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC. Because the power plant and associated facilities would be located on land held in trust by the federal government for the Navajo Nation within the Navajo reservation, the lease must be approved by BIA, an agency of the United States Department of the Interior.
The DEIS is intended to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act for each federal agency's decision related to the siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facility; and to aid federal, Navajo Nation, state, and local permitting authorities with their permitting responsibilities, including surface coal mining, CCB disposal and reclamation activities on the BNCC Lease Area under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address shown in the
This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR, Parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. Seq.), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management policies and Presidential Proclamation 7394 signed on January 17, 2001, the BLM announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument located in Sandoval County, New Mexico. The New Mexico State Director will sign the ROD approving the RMP which becomes effective immediately. The RMP provides for recreational use and facility development. The public has been provided opportunities to observe, study and experience the geologic processes that shape natural landscapes, as well as other cultural and biological objects of interest. The BLM has considered American Indian Uses and Traditional Cultural Practices, siting access and transportation to minimize intrusion on American Indian Use.
Copies of the ROD/Approved RMP are available upon request from the Field Manager, Rio Puerco Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 435 Montano NE., Albuquerque, NM 87107 or via the internet at (
For further information visit the Web site at
The RMP ROD was developed with broad public and stakeholder participation through a 3-year collaborative planning process. The RMP ROD addresses management on approximately 15,635 acres. BLM currently manages 5,089 of these acres and has identified the other 10,546 acres as being desirable for acquisition, to be managed in conjunction with the Monument. The RMP ROD contains both land use planning decisions and implementation decisions to provide planning structure to facilitate the management of the Monument. Major resources and activities addressed in the RMP ROD include: American Indian Use and Traditional Cultural Practices; recreation; cultural resources; interpretation; facilities; lands and realty; access and transportation; vegetation management; and wildlife management.
The ROD selected Alternative B as the approved RMP. Except for editorial clarification and format, Alternative B was approved as it appeared when published as Alternative B (The Preferred Alternative) in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in October 2006, with the NOA published in the
RMP implementation decisions are identified in Chapter 4 of the ROD RMP. As listed here: Access and Transportation pg. 2-5; American Indian Uses and Traditional Cultural Practices pg. 2-9; Cultural Resources pg. 2-11; Fire Management pg. 22-15; Lands and Realty pg. 2-18; Livestock Grazing pg. 2-21; Noxious Weed Management pg. 2-23; Public Land Health pg. 2-26; Recreational Use pg. 2-30; Riparian Areas pg. 2-33; Social and Economic Conditions pg. 2-35; Soil and Water Resources pg. 2-37; Special Geologic Features pg. 2-38; Special Status Species pg. 2-39; Vegetation and Woodlands Management pg. 2-42; Visual Resources pg. 2-43. Pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400
The appeal must be filed with the Rio Puerco Field Manager at the above listed address.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold a meeting as indicated below.
The meeting will be held October 3, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 3 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Boise District Office located at 3948 S. Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho. Public comment periods will be held at intervals throughout the meeting.
MJ Byrne, Public Affairs Officer and RAC Coordinator, BLM Boise District, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, Telephone (208) 384-3393.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in southwestern Idaho.
The Board will receive a briefing on the wildland fires that have occurred within the District, and planned rehabilitation efforts. The RAC will be given a brief status report on the Bruneau Resource Management Plan (RMP).
A presentation will be given about a wind energy project located in the Owyhee Field Office by Ridgeline Energy, Inc. Hot Topics will be discussed by the District Manager and Field Office managers will provide highlights on activities in their offices.
Agenda items and location may change due to changing circumstances, including wildfire emergencies. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM Coordinator as provided above.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and BLM management policies, the BLM announces the availability of the RMP/ROD for the East Alaska planning area.
Copies of the East Alaska ROD/RMP are available upon request from the Field Manager, Glennallen Field Office (GFO), Bureau of Land Management, ATTN: RMP, P.O. Box 147, Glennallen, AK 99588, or via the Internet at
Mr. Bruce Rogers, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, BLM-GFO, P.O. Box 147, Glennallen, AK 99588 (907) 822-3217, or via e-mail to
The East Alaska RMP was developed with broad public participation through a 4-year planning process. This RMP/ROD addresses management on approximately 7.1 million acres of public land in the planning area. The East Alaska RMP is designed to meet goals, objectives, and desired conditions developed through the planning process. It includes a series of management actions to meet these goals, objectives, and desired conditions for upland and riparian vegetation; wildlife habitats; cultural and visual resources; recreation; and subsistence. The approved East Alaska RMP is essentially the same as Alternative D in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (FEIS), published in June 2006. The BLM received three protests to the PRMP/FEIS, which the BLM Director resolved without requiring significant changes to decisions in the PRMP/FEIS.
The Alaska Governor's Consistency Review found the PRMP/FEIS to be inconsistent with Alaska State plans, policies, or programs. This finding was based on BLM's decision to maintain most of Public Land Order 5150, which withdrew lands for a route for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and which now provides a pipeline/utility corridor, high recreation and mineral values, and important subsistence resources. The State of Alaska requested revocation of the withdrawal to allow state top-filings to fall into place, resulting in eventual conveyance of these lands to the state. The PRMP/FEIS partially modified the withdrawal to allow for eventual conveyance to the State of 82,500 acres. The inconsistencies have been resolved through wording in the ROD that allows for future negotiation with the State on this issue.
The RMP/ROD includes decisions identifying routes of travel for motorized vehicles, which are implementation level decisions appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) under 43 CFR part 4. These decisions (route identifications) are displayed on travel management maps in the ROD/RMP. Any party adversely affected by these route identifications may appeal within 30 days of publication of this Notice of Availability by filing a notice of appeal in the office of the BLM Glennallen Field Manager at the above listed address. The notice of appeal should identify the specific route identifications by township, range, and section which are being appealed.
Bureau of Land Management.
Notice of Availability of Record of Decision (ROD).
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policies, the BLM announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California BLM public lands administered by the Hollister Field Office. The California State Director has signed the ROD, which constitutes the final decision of the BLM and makes the Approved RMP effective immediately.
Copies of the ROD and RMP are available upon request from the Field Manager, Hollister Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 20 Hamilton Court, Hollister, California 95023 or via the internet at
Sky Murphy, Hollister Field Office 20 Hamilton Court, Hollister, California 95023; Tel: (831) 630-5039; E-mail:
The Hollister RMP for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California provides direction for managing approximately 274,000 acres of BLM-managed surface acres and 443,806 additional subsurface acres (mineral estate) in central California. The geographic area includes all BLM-managed public lands within the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and portions of Fresno, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin counties. Planning for the Hollister RMP officially began with a Notice of Intent published in the
The BLM's Draft RMP/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California (October 2005) presented alternatives to help the BLM and interested parties understand the various ways of addressing issues in the region. Upon evaluation of the alternatives and associated impacts described in the Draft RMP/EIS and based on public and agency comments on that document, the BLM prepared the Proposed RMP and Final EIS for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California, which was released on July 14, 2006. The Proposed RMP includes the preferred alternative identified in the Draft RMP/EIS with minor changes as a result of comments received.
Eleven protest letters on the Proposed RMP were received and resolved by the BLM Director. The BLM determined that the Preferred Alternative, as described in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, best meets the purpose and need for the plan; however, two (2) minor changes will be made to the ROD/Approved RMP. First, a mapping error will be corrected to show that BLM public lands in the Clear Creek Management Area administrative boundary, which were mistakenly included in Appendix A on Figures 25-27 of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, will not be made available for disposal under this Record
The Approved RMP expands the existing 43,357 acre Panoche-Coalinga Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to include an additional 12,772 acres, and designates two new ACECs (21,980 acres) and one Research Natural Area (RNA) for a total of 78,109 acres of special designations, which is approximately 3 percent of the planning area. The new ACECs include all BLM public lands at the former Fort Ord and 7,327 acres of BLM public lands surrounding Joaquin Rocks. The Monvero Dunes RNA (1,173 acres) is contained within the Panoche-Coalinga ACEC expansion.
The following types of resource use limitations would generally apply to these ACECs: (1) Motorized travel would be limited to designated routes; (2) limits on land disposal; and (3) limits on new mineral development (mineral leasing, locatable minerals and wind energy) to protect unique cultural values and special status plants and animals. For detailed information, see Chapter 3 and Appendix D of the ROD for the Hollister RMP for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California.
The Governor of the State of California in his letter dated September 15, 2006 stated, “Pursuant to 43 CFR 1603-2, and after consulting with affected State and Local agencies, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has not found any inconsistencies with any state or local plans, policies, or programs with regards to this [Proposed] Resource Management Plan.”
The decisions identifying designated routes of travel for motorized vehicles are implementation decisions and are appealable under 43 CFR Part 4. These decisions are contained on Figures 17-21 in Appendix A of the RMP. Any party adversely affected by the decisions identifying designated routes may appeal within 30 days of publication of this Notice of Availability. The appeal should state the specific route(s), as identified in Appendix A of the RMP, on which the decision is being appealed. The appeal must be filed with the Hollister Field Manager at the above listed address.
Please consult the appropriate regulations (43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E) for further appeal requirements. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your appeal, you should be aware that your entire appeal—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your appeal to withhold your personal information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 507 notice is hereby given that on August 16, 2007, a proposed Consent Decree in the Case
In this action, under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, the United States sought injunctive relief and recovery of response costs to remedy conditions in connection with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment at the Waste Disposal, Inc. Superfund Site in Santa Fe Springs, California (hereinafter referred to as the “Site” or “WDI Site.”
The defendants in this action own a portion of the WDI Site, and the purpose of the settlement is to provide to the United States the access and institutional controls or environmental restriction covenants which are required to perform the remedial action at the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94107. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing Tonia Fleetwood at fax no. (202) 514-0097 (phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547) or by e-mailing Tonia Fleetwood at
U.S. Department of Justice.
Modification to Systems of Records.
This notice serves to remove a specific routine use from certain Department of Justice (DOJ) Privacy Act systems of records notices. On January 31, 2001, at 66 FR 8425-32, the following routine use language was added to all DOJ Privacy Act notices published prior to that date, in accordance with a DOJ regulation published at 28 CFR 16.300-01.
[Disclosure ] “To a former employee of the Department for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.”
This routine use is hereby deleted from the following Privacy Act Systems of Records Notices included in the
These modifications will be effective September 7, 2007.
Joo Chung, Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 202-514-4921.
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Counseling and Referral Records, Justice/USA-020.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Grant of Individual Exemptions.
This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
A notice was published in the
The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor.
In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:
(a) The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan.
The restrictions of section 406 of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (F) of the Code, shall not apply to the purchase of certain securities (the Securities), as defined, below in Section III(h), by an asset management affiliate of WFC, as “affiliate” is defined, below, in Section III(c), from any person other than such asset management affiliate of WFC or any affiliate thereof, during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate with respect to such Securities, where a broker-dealer affiliated with WFC (the Affiliated Broker-Dealer), as defined, below, in Section III(b), is a manager or member of such syndicate and the asset management affiliate of WFC purchases such Securities, as a fiduciary:
(a) On behalf of an employee benefit plan or employee benefit plans (Client Plan(s)), as defined, below, in Section III(e); or
(b) on behalf of Client Plans, and/or In-House Plans, as defined, below, in Section III(l), which are invested in a pooled fund or in pooled funds (Pooled Fund(s)), as defined, below, in Section III(f); provided that the conditions as set forth, below, in Section II, are satisfied (An affiliated underwriter transaction (AUT)).
The exemption is conditioned upon adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon satisfaction of the following requirements:
(a)(1) The Securities to be purchased are either—
(i) Part of an issue registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act)
(A) Are issued or guaranteed by the United States or by any person controlled or supervised by and acting as an instrumentality of the United States pursuant to authority granted by the Congress of the United States,
(B) Are issued by a bank,
(C) Are exempt from such registration requirement pursuant to a federal statute other than the 1933 Act, or
(D) Are the subject of a distribution and are of a class which is required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) (15 U.S.C. 781), and are issued by an issuer that has been subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78m) for a period of at least ninety (90) days immediately preceding the sale of such Securities and that has filed all reports required to be filed thereunder with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the preceding twelve (12) months; or
(ii) Part of an issue that is an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, as defined in SEC Rule 10f-3 (17 CFR 270.10f-3(a)(4)). Where the Eligible Rule 144A Offering of the Securities is of equity securities, the offering syndicate shall obtain a legal opinion regarding the adequacy of the disclosure in the offering memorandum;
(2) The Securities to be purchased are purchased prior to the end of the first day on which any sales are made, pursuant to that offering, at a price that is not more than the price paid by each other purchaser of the Securities in that offering or in any concurrent offering of the Securities, except that—
(i) If such Securities are offered for subscription upon exercise of rights, they may be purchased on or before the fourth day preceding the day on which the rights offering terminates; or
(ii) If such Securities are debt securities, they may be purchased at a price that is not more than the price paid by each other purchaser of the Securities in that offering or in any concurrent offering of the Securities and may be purchased on a day subsequent to the end of the first day on which any sales are made, pursuant to that offering, provided that the interest rates, as of the date of such purchase, on comparable debt securities offered to the public subsequent to the end of the first day on which any sales are made and prior to the purchase date are less than the interest rate of the debt Securities being purchased; and
(3) The Securities to be purchased are offered pursuant to an underwriting or selling agreement under which the members of the syndicate are committed to purchase all of the Securities being offered, except if—
(i) Such Securities are purchased by others pursuant to a rights offering; or
(ii) Such Securities are offered pursuant to an over-allotment option.
(b) The issuer of the Securities to be purchased pursuant to this exemption must have been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, unless the Securities to be purchased—
(1) Are non-convertible debt securities rated in one of the four highest rating categories by Standard & Poor's Rating Services, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., FitchRatings, Inc., Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited, Dominion Bond Rating Service, Inc., or any successors thereto (collectively, the Rating Organizations); provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the fourth highest rating category; or
(2) are debt securities issued or fully guaranteed by the United States or by any person controlled or supervised by and acting as an instrumentality of the United States pursuant to authority granted by the Congress of the United States; or
(3) are debt securities which are fully guaranteed by a person (the Guarantor) that has been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, provided that such Guarantor has issued other securities registered under the 1933 Act; or if such Guarantor has issued other securities which are exempt from such registration requirement, such Guarantor has been in continuous operation for not less than three years, including the operation of any predecessors, and such Guarantor:
(a) Is a bank; or
(b) is an issuer of securities which are exempt from such registration requirement, pursuant to a Federal statute other than the 1933 Act; or
(c) is an issuer of securities that are the subject of a distribution and are of a class which is required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) (15 U.S.C. 781), and are issued by an issuer that has been subject to the reporting requirements of section 13 of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78m) for a period of at least ninety (90) days immediately preceding the sale of such securities and that has filed all reports required to be filed thereunder with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the preceding twelve (12) months.
(c) The aggregate amount of Securities of an issue purchased, pursuant to this exemption, by the asset management affiliate of WFC with: (i) The assets of all Client Plans; and (ii) the assets, calculated on a pro-rata basis, of all Client Plans and In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds managed by the asset management affiliate of WFC; and (iii) the assets of plans to which the asset management affiliate of WFC renders investment advice within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) does not exceed:
(1) 10 percent (10%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are equity securities;
(2) 35 percent (35%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are debt securities rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least one of the Rating Organizations; provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the fourth highest rating category; or
(3) 25 percent (25%) of the total amount of the Securities being offered in an issue, if such Securities are debt securities rated in the fifth or sixth highest rating categories by at least one of the Rating Organizations; provided that none of the Rating Organizations rates such Securities in a category lower than the sixth highest rating category; and
(4) The assets of any single Client Plan (and the assets of any Client Plans and any In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds) may not be used to purchase any Securities being offered, if such Securities are debt securities rated lower than the sixth highest rating category by any of the Rating Organizations;
(5) Notwithstanding the percentage of Securities of an issue permitted to be acquired, as set forth in Section II(c)(1), (2), and (3), above, of this exemption, the amount of Securities in any issue (whether equity or debt securities) purchased, pursuant to this exemption, by the asset management affiliate of WFC on behalf of any single Client Plan, either individually or through investment, calculated on a pro-rata basis, in a Pooled Fund may not exceed three percent (3%) of the total amount of such Securities being offered in such issue, and;
(6) If purchased in an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, the total amount of the Securities being offered for purposes of determining the percentages, described,
(i) The principal amount of the offering of such class of Securities sold by underwriters or members of the selling syndicate to “qualified institutional buyers” (QIBs), as defined in SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(1)); plus
(ii) The principal amount of the offering of such class of Securities in any concurrent public offering.
(d) The aggregate amount to be paid by any single Client Plan in purchasing any Securities which are the subject of this exemption, including any amounts paid by any Client Plan or In-House Plan in purchasing such Securities through a Pooled Fund, calculated on a pro-rata basis, does not exceed three percent (3%) of the fair market value of the net assets of such Client Plan or In-House Plan, as of the last day of the most recent fiscal quarter of such Client Plan or In-House Plan prior to such transaction.
(e) The covered transactions are not part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit the asset management affiliate of WFC or an affiliate.
(f) The Affiliated Broker-Dealer does not receive, either directly, indirectly, or through designation, any selling concession, or other compensation or consideration that is based upon the amount of Securities purchased by any single Client Plan, or that is based on the amount of Securities purchased by Client Plans or In-House Plans through Pooled Funds, pursuant to this exemption. In this regard, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer may not receive, either directly or indirectly, any compensation or consideration that is attributable to the fixed designations generated by purchases of the Securities by the asset management affiliate of WFC on behalf of any single Client Plan or any Client Plan or In-House Plan in Pooled Funds.
(g)(1) The amount the Affiliated Broker-Dealer receives in management, underwriting, or other compensation or consideration is not increased through an agreement, arrangement, or understanding for the purpose of compensating the Affiliated Broker-Dealer for foregoing any selling concessions for those Securities sold pursuant to this exemption. Except as described above, nothing in this Section II(g)(1) shall be construed as precluding the Affiliated Broker-Dealer from receiving management fees for serving as manager of the underwriting or selling syndicate, underwriting fees for assuming the responsibilities of an underwriter in the underwriting or selling syndicate, or other compensation or consideration that is not based upon the amount of Securities purchased by the asset management affiliate of WFC on behalf of any single Client Plan, or on behalf of any Client Plan or In-House Plan participating in Pooled Funds, pursuant to this exemption; and
(2) The Affiliated Broker-Dealer shall provide to the asset management affiliate of WFC a written certification, signed by an officer of the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, stating the amount that the Affiliated Broker-Dealer received in compensation or consideration during the past quarter, in connection with any offerings covered by this exemption, was not adjusted in a manner inconsistent with Section II(e), (f), or (g) of this exemption.
(h) The covered transactions are performed under a written authorization executed in advance by an independent fiduciary of each single Client Plan (the Independent Fiduciary), as defined, below, in Section III(g).
(i) Prior to the execution by an Independent Fiduciary of a single Client Plan of the written authorization described, above, in Section II(h), the following information and materials (which may be provided electronically) must be provided by the asset management affiliate of WFC to such Independent Fiduciary:
(1) A copy of the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) and a copy of the final exemption (the Grant) as published in the
(2) Any other reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that such Independent Fiduciary requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide.
(j) Subsequent to the initial authorization by an Independent Fiduciary of a single Client Plan permitting the asset management affiliate of WFC to engage in the covered transactions on behalf of such single Client Plan, the asset management affiliate of WFC will continue to be subject to the requirement to provide within a reasonable period of time any reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide.
(k)(1) In the case of an existing employee benefit plan investor (or existing In-House Plan investor, as the case may be) in a Pooled Fund, such Pooled Fund may not engage in any covered transactions pursuant to this exemption, unless the asset management affiliate of WFC provides the written information, as described below, and within the time period described below in this Section II(k)(2), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such plan participating in such Pooled Fund (and to the fiduciary of each such In-House Plan participating in such Pooled Fund).
(2) The following information and materials (which may be provided electronically) shall be provided by the asset management affiliate of WFC not less than 45 days prior to such asset management affiliate of WFC engaging in the covered transactions on behalf of a Pooled Fund, pursuant to this exemption; and provided further that the information described below, in this Section II(k)(2)(i) and (iii), is supplied simultaneously:
(i) A notice of the intent of such Pooled Fund to purchase Securities pursuant to this exemption, a copy of the Notice, and a copy of the Grant, as published in the
(ii) Any other reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide; and
(iii) A termination form expressly providing an election for the Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund to terminate such plan's (or In-House Plan's) investment in such Pooled Fund without penalty to such plan (or In-House Plan). Such form shall include instructions specifying how to use the form. Specifically, the instructions will explain that such plan (or such In-House Plan) has an opportunity to withdraw its assets from a Pooled Fund for a period of no more than 30 days after such plan's (or such In-House Plan's) receipt of the initial notice of intent, described above in Section II(k)(2)(i), and that the failure of the Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or fiduciary of such In-House Plan) to return the termination form to the asset management affiliate of WFC in the case of a plan (or In-House Plan) participating in a Pooled Fund by the specified date shall be deemed to be an approval by such plan (or such In-House Plan) of its participation in the covered transactions as an investor in such Pooled Fund.
Further, the instructions will identify WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer and will provide the address of the asset management affiliate of WFC. The instructions will state that this exemption may be unavailable, unless the fiduciary of each plan participating
For purposes of this Section II(k), the requirement that the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize the transactions described above in Section I of this exemption for each plan be independent of the asset management affiliate of WFC shall not apply in the case of an In-House Plan.
(l)(1) In the case of each plan (and in the case of each In-House Plan) whose assets are proposed to be invested in a Pooled Fund after such Pooled Fund has satisfied the conditions set forth in this exemption to engage in the covered transactions, the investment by such plan (or by such In-House Plan) in the Pooled Fund is subject to the prior written authorization of an Independent Fiduciary representing such plan (or the prior written authorization by the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be), following the receipt by such Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or by the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) of the written information described above in Section II(k)(2)(i) and (ii); provided that the Notice and the Grant, described above in Section II(k)(2)(i), are provided simultaneously.
(2) For purposes of this Section II(l), the requirement that the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize the transactions described above in Section I of this exemption for each plan proposing to invest in a Pooled Fund be independent of WFC and its affiliates shall not apply in the case of an In-House Plan.
(m) Subsequent to the initial authorization by an Independent Fiduciary of a plan (or by a fiduciary of an In-House Plan) to invest in a Pooled Fund that engages in the covered transactions, the asset management affiliate of WFC will continue to be subject to the requirement to provide within a reasonable period of time any reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Independent Fiduciary of such plan (or the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) requests the asset management affiliate of WFC to provide.
(n) At least once every three months, and not later than 45 days following the period to which such information relates, the asset management affiliate of WFC shall furnish:
(1) In the case of each single Client Plan that engages in the covered transactions, the information described below in this Section II(n)(3)-(7), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such single Client Plan.
(2) In the case of each Pooled Fund in which a Client Plan (or in which an In-House Plan) invests, the information described below in this Section II(n)(3)-(6) and (8), to the Independent Fiduciary of each such Client Plan (and to the fiduciary of each such In-House Plan) invested in such Pooled Fund.
(3) A quarterly report (the Quarterly Report) (which may be provided electronically) which discloses all the Securities purchased pursuant to this exemption during the period to which such report relates on behalf of the Client Plan, In-House Plan, or Pooled Fund to which such report relates, and which discloses the terms of each of the transactions described in such report, including:
(i) The type of Securities (including the rating of any Securities which are debt securities) involved in each transaction;
(ii) The price at which the Securities were purchased in each transaction;
(iii) The first day on which any sale was made during the offering of the Securities;
(iv) The size of the issue of the Securities involved in each transaction;
(v) The number of Securities purchased by the asset management affiliate of WFC for the Client Plan, In-House Plan, or Pooled Fund to which the transaction relates;
(vi) The identity of the underwriter from whom the Securities were purchased for each transaction;
(vii) The underwriting spread in each transaction (i.e., the difference, between the price at which the underwriter purchases the Securities from the issuer and the price at which the Securities are sold to the public);
(viii) The price at which any of the Securities purchased during the period to which such report relates were sold; and
(ix) The market value at the end of the period to which such report relates of the Securities purchased during such period and not sold;
(4) The Quarterly Report contains:
(i) A representation that the asset management affiliate of WFC has received a written certification signed by an officer of the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as described, above, in Section II(g)(2), affirming that, as to each AUT covered by this exemption during the past quarter, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer acted in compliance with Section II(e), (f), and (g) of this exemption, and
(ii) A representation that copies of such certifications will be provided upon request;
(5) A disclosure in the Quarterly Report that states that any other reasonably available information regarding a covered transaction that an Independent Fiduciary (or fiduciary of an In-House Plan) requests will be provided, including, but not limited to:
(i) The date on which the Securities were purchased on behalf of the Client Plan (or the In-House Plan) to which the disclosure relates (including Securities purchased by Pooled Funds in which such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan) invests;
(ii) The percentage of the offering purchased on behalf of all Client Plans (and the pro-rata percentage purchased on behalf of Client Plans and In-House Plans investing in Pooled Funds); and
(iii) The identity of all members of the underwriting syndicate;
(6) The Quarterly Report discloses any instance during the past quarter where the asset management affiliate of WFC was precluded for any period of time from selling Securities purchased under this exemption in that quarter because of its status as an affiliate of an Affiliated Broker-Dealer and the reason for this restriction;
(7) Explicit notification, prominently displayed in each Quarterly Report sent to the Independent Fiduciary of each single Client Plan that engages in the covered transactions that the authorization to engage in such covered transactions may be terminated, without penalty to such single Client Plan, within five (5) days after the date that the Independent Fiduciary of such single Client Plan informs the person identified in such notification that the authorization to engage in the covered transactions is terminated; and
(8) Explicit notification, prominently displayed in each Quarterly Report sent to the Independent Fiduciary of each Client Plan (and to the fiduciary of each In-House Plan) that engages in the covered transactions through a Pooled Fund that the investment in such Pooled Fund may be terminated, without penalty to such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan), within such time as may be necessary to effect the withdrawal in an orderly manner that is equitable to all withdrawing plans and to the non-withdrawing plans, after the date that the Independent Fiduciary of such Client Plan (or the fiduciary of such In-House Plan, as the case may be) informs the person identified in such notification that the investment in such Pooled Fund is terminated.
(o) For purposes of engaging in covered transactions, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) shall have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million (the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement). For purposes of engaging in covered transactions involving an Eligible Rule 144A Offering,
(i) The securities are offered or sold in transactions exempt from registration under section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77d(d)], rule 144A thereunder [§ 230.144A of this chapter], or rules 501-508 thereunder [§§ 230.501-230-508 of this chapter];
(ii) The securities are sold to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe to include qualified institutional buyers, as defined in § 230.144A(a)(1) of this chapter; and
(iii) The seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe that the securities are eligible for resale to other qualified institutional buyers pursuant to § 230.144A of this chapter.
For purposes of a Pooled Fund engaging in covered transactions, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund shall have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if each such Client Plan (and each such In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund does not have total net assets with a value of at least $50 million, the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement will be met, if 50 percent (50%) or more of the units of beneficial interest in such Pooled Fund are held by Client Plans (or by In-House Plans) each of which has total net assets with a value of at least $50 million. For purposes of a Pooled Fund engaging in covered transactions involving an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, each Client Plan (and each In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund shall have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if each such Client Plan (and each such In-House Plan) in such Pooled Fund does not have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or In-House Plan, as the case may be), the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement will be met if 50 percent (50%) or more of the units of beneficial interest in such Pooled Fund are held by Client Plans (or by In-House Plans) each of which have total net assets of at least $100 million in securities of issuers that are not affiliated with such Client Plan (or such In-House Plan, as the case may be), and the Pooled Fund itself qualifies as a QIB, as determined pursuant to SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(F)).
For purposes of the net asset requirements described, above, in this Section II(o), where a group of Client Plans is maintained by a single employer or controlled group of employers, as defined in section 407(d)(7) of the Act, the $50 Million Net Asset Requirement (or in the case of an Eligible Rule 144A Offering, the $100 Million Net Asset Requirement) may be met by aggregating the assets of such Client Plans, if the assets of such Client Plans are pooled for investment purposes in a single master trust.
(p) The asset management affiliate of WFC qualifies as a “qualified professional asset manager” (QPAM), as that term is defined under Part V(a) of PTE 84-14. Notwithstanding the fact that the asset management affiliate of WFC satisfies the requirements, as set forth in Part V(a) of PTE 84-14, such asset management affiliate of WFC must also have total client assets under its management and control in excess of $5 billion, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year and shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million. Furthermore, the requirement that the asset management affiliate of WFC must have total client assets under its management and control in excess of $5 billion, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year and shareholders' or partners' equity in excess of $1 million, as set forth in this Section II(p), applies whether such asset management affiliate of WFC, qualifies as a QPAM, pursuant to Part V(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(4) of PTE 84-14.
(q) No more than 20 percent of the assets of a Pooled Fund at the time of a covered transaction are comprised of assets of In-House Plans for which WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, or an affiliate exercises investment discretion.
(r) The asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as applicable, maintain, or cause to be maintained, for a period of six (6) years from the date of any covered transaction such records as are necessary to enable the persons described below in Section II(s), to determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, except that—
(1) No party in interest with respect to a plan which engages in the covered transactions, other than WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as applicable, shall be subject to a civil penalty under section 502(i) of the Act or the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, if such records are not maintained, or not available for examination, as required below by Section II(s); and
(2) A prohibited transaction shall not be considered to have occurred solely because, due to circumstances beyond the control of the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, as applicable, such records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period.
(s)(1) Except as provided below in Section II(s)(2), and notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section 504 of the Act, the records referred to above in Section II(r) are unconditionally available at their customary location for examination during normal business hours by—
(i) Any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department, the Internal Revenue Service, or the SEC; or
(ii) Any fiduciary of any plan that engages in the covered transactions, or any duly authorized employee or representative of such fiduciary; or
(iii) Any employer of participants and beneficiaries and any employee organization whose members are covered by a plan that engages in the covered transactions, or any authorized employee or representative of these entities; or
(iv) Any participant or beneficiary of a plan that engages in the covered transactions, or duly authorized employee or representative of such participant or beneficiary;
(2) None of the persons described, above, in Section II(s)(1)(ii)-(iv) shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, or commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential; and
(3) Should the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer refuse to disclose information on the basis that such information is exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Section II(s)(2), above, the asset management affiliate of WFC shall, by the close of the thirtieth (30th) day following the request, provide a written notice advising that person of the reasons for the refusal and that the Department may request such information.
(a) The term, “the Applicant,” means WFC.
(b) The term, “Affiliated Broker-Dealer,” means any broker-dealer affiliate, as “affiliate” is defined, below,
(c) The term “affiliate” of a person includes:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person;
(2) Any officer, director, partner, employee, or relative, as defined in section 3(15) of the Act, of such person; and
(3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.
(d) The term, “control,” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.
(e) The term, “Client Plan(s),” means an employee benefit plan(s) that is subject to the Act and/or the Code, and for which plan(s) an asset management affiliate of WFC exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management or disposition of some or all of the assets of such plan(s), but excludes In-House Plans, as defined, below, in Section III(l).
(f) The term, “Pooled Fund(s),” means a common or collective trust fund(s) or a pooled investment fund(s):
(1) In which employee benefit plan(s) subject to the Act and/or Code invest,
(2) which is maintained by an asset management affiliate of WFC, (as the term, “affiliate” is defined, above, in Section III(c)), and
(3) for which such asset management affiliate of WFC exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting the management or disposition of the assets of such fund(s).
(g)(1) The term, “Independent Fiduciary,” means a fiduciary of a plan who is unrelated to, and independent of WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer. For purposes of this exemption, a fiduciary of a plan will be deemed to be unrelated to, and independent of WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, and the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, if such fiduciary represents that neither such fiduciary, nor any individual responsible for the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for the transactions described, above, in Section I of this exemption, is an officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer, and represents that such fiduciary shall advise the asset management affiliate of WFC within a reasonable period of time after any change in such facts occur.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section III(g), a fiduciary of a plan is not independent:
(i) If such fiduciary directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer;
(ii) If such fiduciary directly or indirectly receives any compensation or other consideration from WFC, the asset management affiliate of WFC, or the Affiliated Broker-Dealer for his or her own personal account in connection with any transaction described in this exemption;
(iii) If any officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of the asset management affiliate of WFC responsible for the transactions described, above, in Section I of this exemption, is an officer, director, or highly compensated employee (within the meaning of section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) of the sponsor of the plan or of the fiduciary responsible for the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for the transactions described, above, in Section I. However, if such individual is a director of the sponsor of the plan or of the responsible fiduciary, and if he or she abstains from participation in: (A) the choice of the plan's investment manager/adviser; and (B) the decision to authorize or terminate authorization for transactions described, above, in Section I, then Section III(g)(2)(iii) shall not apply.
(3) The term, “officer,” means a president, any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or function (such as sales, administration, or finance), or any other officer who performs a policy-making function for WFC or any affiliate thereof.
(h) The term, “Securities,” shall have the same meaning as defined in section 2(36) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act), as amended (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(36)(1996)). For purposes of this exemption, mortgage-backed or other asset-backed securities rated by one of the Rating Organizations, as defined, below, in Section III(k), will be treated as debt securities.
(i) The term, “Eligible Rule 144A Offering,” shall have the same meaning as defined in SEC Rule 10f-3(a)(4) (17 CFR 270.10f-3(a)(4)) under the 1940 Act.
(j) The term, “qualified institutional buyer,” or the term, “QIB,” shall have the same meaning as defined in SEC Rule 144A (17 CFR 230.144A(a)(1)) under the 1933 Act.
(k) The term, “Rating Organizations,” means Standard & Poor's Rating Services, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., FitchRatings, Inc., Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited, and Dominion Bond Rating Service, Inc., or any successors thereto.
(l) The term, “In-House Plan(s),” means an employee benefit plan(s) that is subject to the Act and/or the Code, and that is sponsored by the Applicant, as defined, above, in Section III(a) for its own employees.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice published on July 2, 2007 at 72 FR 36048.
Mr. Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1), and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the Sale (the Sale) by the Plan to 407 Partners LLC (the LLC), a limited liability corporation, and a party in interest to the Plan, of a parcel of improved real property (the Property) located in Kailua, Hawaii. This exemption is conditioned upon the adherence to the material facts and representations described herein and upon the satisfaction of the following requirements:
(a) All terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable to the Plan as those which the Plan could obtain in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party;
(b) The fair market value of the Property has been determined by a qualified, independent appraiser;
(c) The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash;
(d) The Plan does not pay any commissions, costs or other expenses in connection with the Sale; and
(e) The Plan will receive an amount equal to the greater of: (i) $3,250,000; or (ii) The current fair market value of the Property, as established by an independent, qualified appraiser at the time of the Sale.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice of Proposed Exemption published on June 1, 2007 at 72 FR 30633.
Khalif Ford of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8540 (this is not a toll-free number).
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) and 406(b)(1), and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code shall not apply to the proposed cash sale (the Sale) of a parcel of improved real property (the Property) by the Plan to Victor P. Olson (the Applicant), a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) The terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable to the Plan as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;
(c) The Plan will receive the greater of $375,000 or the fair market value of the Property at the time of the Sale;
(d) The Plan is not required to pay any commissions, costs or other expenses in connection with the Sale; and
(e) The fair market value of the Property is determined by an independent, qualified appraiser.
The operative language of the proposed exemption (72 FR 21302) provided relief from the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) of the Act and section 4975(c)(1)(A) of the Code. The Department has determined, as a matter of clarification, that relief from the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) and 406(b)(1), and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, should be provided as well, and hereby modifies the proposed exemption and incorporates such modification in this grant notice.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice of Proposed Exemption published on April 30, 2007 at 72 FR 21302.
Khalif Ford of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8540 (this is not a toll-free number).
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by October 9, 2007. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address or (703) 292-7405.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
The applications received are as follows:
1.
2.
A
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of August, 2007. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch (tel. 202-551-5850). An order granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on September 25, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Diane L. Titus at (202) 551-6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.
Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 13, 2007, applicant transferred its assets to AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc., based on net asset value. Expenses of $268,815 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
The application was filed on July 24, 2007, and amended on August 24, 2007.
1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 31, 2000, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $50,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by Alliance Capital Management L.P., applicant's investment adviser.
The application was filed on July 25, 2007.
1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105.
Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
The application was filed on July 18, 2007.
c/o FAF Advisors, Inc., BC-MN-HO5F, U.S. Bancorp Center, 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December 22, 2006, all of applicant's shareholders other than Highland Capital Management, L.P. (“Highland”), applicant's investment adviser, sold their shares to Highland at net asset value. Subsequently, applicant also made in kind and cash distributions to Highland on December 22, 2006. All of applicant's outstanding preferred shares were redeemed on December 21, 2006. Expenses of approximately $37,517 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
The application was filed on July 19, 2007.
Two Galleria Tower, 13455 Noel Rd., Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75240.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November 23, 2003, applicant transferred its assets to Jennison Global Growth Fund, a series of Prudential World Fund, Inc., based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $91,887 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
The application was filed on July 3, 2007, and amended on July 26, 2007.
Gateway Center Three, 100 Mulberry St., Newark, NJ 07102-4077.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 27, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $19,550 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant's investment adviser, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., and its affiliates.
The application was filed on June 29, 2007, and amended on August 16, 2007.
245 Park Ave., New York, NY 10167.
Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make
The application was filed on June 18, 2007, and amended on July 24, 2007.
505 Park Ave., Fifth Floor, New York, NY 10022.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 29, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $512,851 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by The Dreyfus Corporation.
The application was filed on July 2, 2007, and amendments thereto on July 27, 2007 and August 22, 2007.
c/o The Bank of New York, 101 Barclay St., New York, NY 10286.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 13, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund, based on net asset value. Expenses of $87,650 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
The application was filed on July 11, 2007.
6803 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 13, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $18,045 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by Summit Wealth Management, Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
The application was filed on June 14, 2007, and amended on August 23, 2007.
c/o Gemini Fund Services, LLC, 450 Wireless Blvd., Hauppauge, NY 11788.
Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On January 27, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to First Investors Income Funds, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $58,921 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
The application was filed on July 2, 2007, and amended on August 23, 2007.
95 Wall St., New York, NY 10005.
Applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December 5, 2006, applicant's board voted to approve abandonment of registration because (1) Applicant's sole purpose is to support certain outstanding variable annuity contracts (VA Contracts) issued in 1981 or earlier by depositor Capitol Life Insurance Company, and (2) there are only 95 beneficial owners of such VA Contracts remaining. Applicant will continue to operate as an unregistered separate account in reliance on Section 3(c)(1) of the 1940 Act until Applicant has no securities remaining outstanding because no VA Contracts remain outstanding. Applicant is not presently making a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering.
The application was filed on May 21, 2007, and amended on August 1, 2007.
1658 Cole Blvd., Suite 208, Golden, Colorado 80401.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.
Applicants request an order that would permit (a) series of open-end management investment companies, to issue shares (“Shares”) that can be redeemed only in large aggregations (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated prices; (c) dealers to sell Shares to purchasers in the secondary market unaccompanied by a prospectus when prospectus delivery is not required by the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”); and (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units.
SPA ETF Trust (the “Trust”) and SPA ETF Inc. (the “Adviser”).
The application was filed on March 14, 2007 and amended on July 13, 2007. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in the notice.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 25, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o Day Pitney, One Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901.
Keith A. Gregory, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-6815, or Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102, telephone (202) 551-5850.
1. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment company and is organized as a Delaware statutory trust authorized to issue multiple series. The Trust intends to offer and sell shares of multiple separate series (each an “Index Fund” or “Fund”). The Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”) and will serve as the investment adviser to each Index Fund. In the future, the Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with other investment advisers to act as “sub-advisers” with respect to particular Index Funds. Any sub-adviser will be registered under the Advisers Act or exempt from registration. Foreside Fund Services, LLC (“Distributor”), a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), will serve as the principal underwriter and distributor for the Index Funds.
2. Each Index Fund will hold certain securities (“Portfolio Securities”) selected to correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of a specified equity securities index (each an “Underlying Index”). No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors or maintains an Underlying Index is or will be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Trust, the Adviser, the Distributor, promoter or any sub-adviser to an Index Fund. The Underlying Indexes for each Index Fund that will be initially offered (the “Initial Index Funds”) are: (i) MarketGrader 40 Index, (ii) MarketGrader 100 Index, (iii) MarketGrader 200 Index, (iv) MarketGrader Small Cap 100 Index, (v) MarketGrader Mid Cap 100 Index, and (vi) MarketGrader Large Cap 100 Index. The Trust may offer additional Index Funds in the future based on other Underlying Indexes (“Future Index Funds,” and together with the Initial Index Funds, “Index Funds”). Any Future Index Funds will (a) comply with the terms and conditions of any order granted pursuant to the application and (b) be advised by the Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser.
3. The investment objective of each Index Fund will be to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of its Underlying Index. Intra-day values of the Underlying Index will be disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading day. An Index Fund will utilize either a “replication” or “representative sampling” strategy which will be disclosed with regard to each Index Fund in its prospectus (“Prospectus”).
4. Shares of the Index Funds will be sold in Creation Units of at least 100,000 Shares. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through a party that has entered into an agreement with the Trust and Distributor (“Authorized Participant”). An Authorized Participant must be either: (a) A broker-dealer or other participant in the continuous net settlement system of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency registered with the Commission, or (b) a participant in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”, and such participant, “DTC Participant”). Shares of each Index Fund generally will be sold in Creation Units in exchange for an in-kind deposit by the purchaser of a portfolio of securities designated by the Adviser to correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the relevant Underlying Index (the “Deposit Securities”), together with the deposit of a relatively small specified cash payment (“Cash Component”). The Cash Component is generally an amount equal to the difference between (a) The net asset value (“NAV”) (per Creation Unit) of the Index Fund and (b) the total aggregate market value (per Creation Unit) of the Deposit Securities.
5. Purchasers of Shares in Creation Units may hold such Shares or may sell such Shares into the secondary market. Shares will be listed and traded on the American Stock Exchange, LLC, (“Amex”), or another U.S. national securities exchange as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (each, an “Other Exchange” and together with Amex, the “Exchanges”). It is expected that one or more member firms of a listing Exchange will be designated to act as a specialist and maintain a market for Shares on the Exchange (the “Exchange Specialist”). If The NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. (“NASDAQ”) is the listing Exchange, one or more member firms of NASDAQ will act as a market maker (“Market Maker”) and maintain a market on NASDAQ.
6. Shares will not be individually redeemable, and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Index Fund, or tender such Shares for redemption to the Index Fund, in Creation Units only.
7. Neither the Trust nor any individual Index Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as an “open-end investment company” or a “mutual fund.” Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “exchange-traded fund,” an “investment company,” a “fund,” or a “trust.” All marketing materials that describe the method of obtaining, buying or selling Shares, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that the owners of Shares may purchase or redeem Shares from the Index Fund in Creating Units only. The same approach will be followed in the SAI, shareholder reports and investor educational materials issued or circulated in connection with the Shares. The Funds will provide copies of their annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC Participants for distribution to beneficial owners of Shares.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the owner, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Trust to register as an open-end management investment company and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because the market price of Shares will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at prices that do not vary substantially from their NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security, which is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming or repurchasing a redeemable security do
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and (c) ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve the Index Funds as parties and cannot result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because competitive forces will ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains narrow.
7. Section 24(d) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the prospectus delivery exemption provided to dealer transactions by section 4(3) of the Securities Act does not apply to any transaction in a redeemable security issued by an open-end investment company. Applicants seek relief from section 24(d) to permit dealers selling Shares to rely on the prospectus delivery exemption provided by section 4(3) of the Securities Act.
8. Applicants state that Shares are bought and sold in the secondary market in the same manner as closed-end fund shares. Applicants note that transactions in closed-end fund shares are not subject to section 24(d), and thus closed-end fund shares are sold in the secondary market without a prospectus. Applicants contend that Shares likewise merit a reduction in the unnecessary compliance costs and regulatory burdens resulting from the imposition of the prospectus delivery obligations in the secondary market. Because Shares will be listed on an Exchange, prospective investors will have access to information about the product over and above what is normally available about an open-end security. Applicants state that information regarding market price and volume will be continually available on a real time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's price and volume information will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. In addition, the Trust also intends to maintain a Web site that will include the Prospectus and SAI, the relevant Underlying Index for each Index Fund and additional quantitative information that is updated on a daily basis, including daily trading volume, closing price, the NAV for each Index Fund and information about the premiums and discounts at which the Index Fund's Shares have traded.
9. Applicants will arrange for broker-dealers selling Shares in the secondary market to provide purchasers with a product description (“Product Description”) that describes, in plain English, the relevant Index Fund and the Shares it issues. Applicants state that a Product Description is not intended to substitute for a full Prospectus. Applicants state that the Product Description will be tailored to meet the information needs of investors purchasing Shares in the secondary market.
10. Section 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person (“second-tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an affiliated person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person; (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with power to vote, by the other person and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. The Index Funds may be deemed to be controlled by the Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Index Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by the Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”). Applicants state that if Creation Units of an Index Fund are held by twenty or fewer investors, including an Exchange Specialist or Market Maker, some or all of such investors will be 5% owners of the Index Fund, and one or more investors may hold in excess of 25% of the Index Fund. Such investors would be deemed to be affiliates of the Index Fund. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act pursuant to sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons or second-tier affiliates of the Index Funds solely by virtue of: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding Shares of one or more Index Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or
11. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting these types of affiliated persons from purchasing or redeeming Creation Units through “in-kind” transactions. The deposit procedures for both in-kind purchases and in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions. Deposit Securities and Fund Securities will be valued in the same manner as Portfolio Securities. Therefore, applicants state that in-kind purchases and redemptions will afford no opportunity for the affiliated persons of an Index Fund, or the second-tier affiliates described above, to effect a transaction detrimental to other holders of Shares. Applicants also believe that in-kind purchases and redemptions will not result in self-dealing or overreaching of the Index Fund.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each Index Fund's Prospectus and Product Description will clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, Shares are issued by the Index Fund and that the acquisition of Shares by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act.
2. As long as the Trust operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares will be listed on an Exchange.
3. Neither the Trust nor any Index Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end fund or a mutual fund. Each Index Fund's Prospectus will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable shares and will disclose that the owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Index Fund and tender those shares for redemption to the Index Fund in Creation Units only. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable, and that owners of Shares may purchase those Shares from the Index Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Index Fund in Creation Units only.
4. The Web site for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per Share basis, for each Index Fund: (a) The prior Business Day's NAV and the reported closing price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such NAV; and (b) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily closing price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. In addition the Product Description for each Index Fund will state that the Web site for the Trust has information about the premiums and discounts at which Shares have traded.
5. The Prospectus and annual report for each Index Fund also will include: (a) The information listed in condition 4(b), (i) in the case of the Prospectus, for the most recently completed year (and the most recently completed quarter or quarters, as applicable) and (ii) in the case of the annual report, for the immediately preceding five years, as applicable; and (b) the following data, calculated on a per Share basis for one, five and ten year periods (or life of the Index Fund): (i) The cumulative total return and the average annual total return based on NAV and closing price, and (ii) the cumulative total return of the relevant Underlying Index.
6. Before an Index Fund may rely on the order, the Commission will have approved, pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act, an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in Shares to deliver a Product Description to purchasers of Shares.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 615 East Michigan Street; Milwaukee, WI 53202.
Lewis B. Reich, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6919, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6821 (Office of Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch,
1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust organized as a series investment company, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and currently offers thirteen series, six of which are advised by the Adviser (“Funds”).
2. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser provides each Fund with overall management services and continuously reviews, supervises and administers each Fund's investment program, subject to the supervision of, and policies established by, the Board, and has the authority, subject to the approval of the Board and Fund shareholders, to enter into investment subadvisory agreements (“Subadvisory Agreements”) with one or more subadvisers (“Subadvisers”). The Adviser has entered into Subadvisory Agreements with various Subadvisers to provide investment advisory services to the Funds. Each Subadviser is, and every future Subadviser will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Adviser monitors and evaluates the Subadvisers and recommends to the Board their hiring, retention or termination. Subadvisers recommended to the Board by the Adviser are selected and approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees. Each Subadviser has discretionary authority to invest the assets or a portion of the assets of a particular Fund. The Adviser compensates each Subadviser out of the fees paid to the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement.
3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to any Subadviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust or of the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a subadviser to one or more of the Funds (“Affiliated Subadviser”).
4. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure provisions described below that may require a Fund to disclose fees paid by the Adviser to each Subadviser. An exemption is requested to permit the Trust to disclose for each Fund (as both a dollar amount and as a percentage of each Fund's net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Affiliated Subadvisers; and (b) the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers other than Affiliated Subadvisers (“Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). Any Fund that employs an Affiliated Subadviser will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the Affiliated Subadviser.
1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been approved by a vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 14(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees.
4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to their investment advisers, including the Subadvisers.
5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of investment company registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require that investment companies include in their financial statements information about investment advisory fees.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
7. Applicants assert that the shareholders rely on the Adviser's experience to select one or more Subadvisers best suited to achieve a Fund's investment objectives. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the investor, the role of the Subadvisers is comparable to that of the individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment company advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring shareholder approval of each Subadvisory Agreement would impose costs and unnecessary delays on the Funds, and may preclude the Adviser from acting promptly in a manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreement and any Subadvisory Agreement with an Affiliated Subadviser will remain subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
8. Applicants assert that some Subadvisers use a “posted” rate schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that while Subadvisers are willing
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial shareholder before offering the Fund's shares to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the Application. Each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the management structure described in the Application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
3. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Subadviser, the affected Fund shareholders will be furnished all information about the new Subadviser that would be included in a proxy statement, except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This information will include Aggregate Fee Disclosure and any change in that disclosure caused by the addition of the new Subadviser. To meet this obligation, the Fund will provide shareholders within 90 days of the hiring of a new Subadviser with an information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C, and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act, except as modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
4. The Adviser will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Affiliated Subadviser without that agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, having been approved by the shareholders of the applicable Fund.
5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
6. When a Subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser would derive an inappropriate advantage.
7. Independent counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then existing Independent Trustees.
8. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a per-Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadviser during the applicable quarter.
9. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Adviser.
10. The Adviser will provide general management services to each Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Fund's assets and, subject to review and approval of the Board, will (i) set each Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisers to manage all or part of a Fund's assets; (iii) when appropriate, allocate and reallocate a Fund's assets among multiple Subadvisers; (iv) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadvisers; and (v) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Subadvisers comply with each Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
11. No director or officer of the Trust, or director or officer of the Adviser, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any interest in a Subadviser, except for (a) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Adviser; or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Subadviser.
12. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
13. The requested order will expire on the effective date of Rule 15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt rules and procedures regarding the definition and execution of NDX and RUT combination orders in Amex Rules 950-ANTE and 953-ANTE (c). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The
The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 950-ANTE(e) to include the definition of NDX and RUT combination orders in Amex rules.
The Exchange further proposes to adopt execution procedures regarding NDX and RUT combination orders in Amex Rule 953-ANTE(c). The proposed rule enables a member holding a NDX or RUT combination order, and bidding or offering in a multiple of the minimum price variation on the basis of a total debit or credit for the order, to execute the NDX or RUT combination order even if he has determined that the order may not otherwise be executable (
This proposal permits the member to execute the order at the best net debit or credit price so long as: (1) No leg of the order would trade at a price outside the currently displayed bids or offers in the trading crowd or bids or offers in the limit order book; and (2) at least one leg of the order would trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer in the limit order book.
The Exchange proposes that if a NDX or RUT combination order is not executed immediately, that same order may be executed and printed at the prices originally quoted for each of the component option series in the two (2) hour time period after the original quote, provided the prices originally quoted satisfied the requirements of proposed paragraphs (c)(i)(A) and (c)(i)(B) of Amex Rule 953-ANTE, and provided at the time of execution no individual leg of such order may trade ahead of the corresponding bid or offer in the NDX or RUT limit order book.
The purpose of this proposal is to facilitate the hedging of NDX and RUT Combinations during times of market volatility. NDX and RUT market participants holding orders for options tied to combinations often experience difficulty in completing such transactions in a volatile market and are unable to complete the trade because the prices originally quoted for a component leg of the order may no longer be traded within displayed market quotes.
The Amex notes that when transactions for the component series of a NDX or RUT Combination are traded out-of-range pursuant to the two (2) hour window permitted by proposed Amex Rule 953-ANTE(c), the trade will be price reported to the trading floor and to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) using a sold sale indicator to provide notice to the public that the reported prices were part of an out-of-range combination trade.
The Exchange represents that proposed Amex Rule 953-ANTE(c)(ii) will be used during times of market volatility for the benefit of the marketplace and investors in order to provide liquidity to larger-sized orders. Finally, as noted above, the component leg of an NDX or RUT combination order will be price reported to the trading floor and OPRA using a sold sale indicator that will act as notice to the public that the reported prices are part of an NDX or RUT combination order.
Finally, the Amex further notes that it will issue a regulatory circular to its membership to explain the operation of Amex Rule 953-ANTE(c). In the regulatory circular the Amex will remind its membership that the adoption of Amex Rule 953-ANTE(c) does not minimize the obligation of members to obtain best execution of options orders for their customers.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The Commission is considering granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change at the end of a 15-day comment period.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NASD proposes to adopt Interpretive Material 1013-1 (“IM-1013-1”), a membership waive-in process for certain New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) member organizations, and Interpretive Material Section 4(e) to Schedule A of the By-Laws, a membership application fee waiver for those NYSE member organizations that apply for membership pursuant to IM-1013-1. The proposed rule change is submitted in furtherance of the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”) (“Transaction”).
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On November 28, 2006, NASD and the NYSE Group announced a plan to consolidate their member regulation operations into a combined organization intended to be the sole U.S. private-sector provider of member firm regulation for securities firms that do business with the public. Upon closing of the Transaction, NASD adopted the new corporate name, FINRA.
On July 24, 2007, NYSE filed a proposed rule change requiring its member organizations to become members of FINRA to achieve the Transaction's goal to eliminate duplicative member firm regulation (“Mandatory FINRA Membership filing”).
NASD recognizes that NYSE has a comprehensive membership application and review process based on similar principles and standards to that of NASD. As such, those NYSE-only member organizations that will become FINRA members already have been subjected to an extensive screening process. Therefore, the proposed rule change would establish IM-1013-1, a process that would make such firms eligible to automatically become a FINRA member and to automatically register all associated persons whose registrations are approved with NYSE in registration categories recognized by FINRA upon submission to FINRA's Member Regulation Department (“Department”) of a signed waive-in membership application (“Waive-In Application”).
FINRA does not intend to recognize any new registration categories upon the closing of the Transaction. Thus, associated persons of the NYSE-only member organizations will be automatically registered with FINRA only for those registration categories that are recognized jointly by NASD and NYSE—
The Waive-In Application would require the following information:
(1) General company information, including Central Registration Depository (CRD®) Number and contact person.
(2) An attestation that all information on the applicant's CRD form, as of the date of submission of the Waive-In Application is accurate and complete and fully reflects all aspects of the applicant's current business, including, but not limited to, ownership structure, management, product lines and disclosures.
(3) The identity of the firm's Executive Representative.
(4) Completed and signed Entitlement Forms.
(5) A signed FINRA Membership Agreement.
(6) Representations that the applicant's Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration (Form BD) will be amended as needed to keep current and accurate; that all individual and entity registrations with FINRA will be kept current; and that all information and statements contained in the Waive-In Application are current, true and complete.
The proposed rule change would require the Department to review the Waive-In Application within three (3) business days of receipt and, if complete, issue a letter notifying the applicant that it has been approved for membership. The Membership Agreement would become effective on the date of such notification letter.
As set forth in proposed IM-1013-1, the NYSE-only member organizations admitted pursuant to proposed IM-1013-1 would be subject to the NYSE rules incorporated by FINRA, FINRA's By-Laws and Schedules to By-Laws, including Schedule A (Assessments and Fees), and NASD Rule 8000 (Investigations and Sanctions) and Rule 9000 (Code of Procedure) Series, provided that their securities business is limited to floor brokerage on the NYSE, or routing away to other markets orders that are ancillary to their core floor business under NYSE Rule 70.40 (“permitted floor activities”).
Associated persons of an NYSE-only member organization admitted to FINRA pursuant to proposed IM-1013-1 would be subject to the same set of rules as the firm with which they are associated, namely the NYSE rules incorporated by FINRA, FINRA's By-Laws and Schedules to By-Laws, and the NASD Rule 8000 and 9000 Series. Inasmuch as these associated persons would not be subject to NASD Rules 1021 or 1031, they would not be required to register in a registration category recognized by FINRA. To the extent that such persons continue to be associated solely with a firm whose business complies with the limitations imposed on those firms admitted to FINRA pursuant to proposed IM-1013-1, FINRA is not imposing any registration requirements beyond those required by the NYSE, provided their business is confined in scope as contemplated in proposed IM-1013-1.
Finally, the proposed rule change would create Interpretive Material Section 4(b)(1) and 4(e) of Schedule A of the NASD By-Laws, which would exempt the applicants from the assessment of a FINRA membership application fee and from fees for each initial Form U4 filed by the applicant with FINRA for the registration of a representative or principal associated with the firm at the time it submits its application for FINRA membership pursuant to proposed IM-1013-1. NASD believes the exemption is appropriate, since NYSE is mandating FINRA membership in furtherance of the Transaction and because the waive-in application process will not require
The effective date of the proposed rule change will be the date of Commission approval of the proposed rule change.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, including Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 13, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to modify the fees charged to companies that list upon emerging from bankruptcy. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to waive the entry fee (including the application fee)
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee waivers are justified by the unique circumstances faced by companies emerging from bankruptcy. According to the Exchange, these companies typically are not raising any new capital at the time of listing, so the payment of entry and listing fees is more burdensome than for companies that are listing upon an initial public offering. Also, because of the desire in bankruptcy proceedings to ensure that creditors are paid as much as possible, the Exchange believes these companies are much more sensitive to both the initial and continued costs associated with listing. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable and equitably allocated.
The Exchange has represented that the proposed rule change would not affect its commitment of resources to its regulatory oversight of the listing process or its other regulatory programs. Nasdaq reports that historically it has not listed a large number of companies emerging from bankruptcy in any given year.
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that a company who relists upon emerging from bankruptcy has usually paid either an entry fee to the Exchange or a similar initial listing fee to another national securities exchange at the time of its initial listing. In addition, with respect to the application of the minimum annual listing fee to a company which lists upon emergence from bankruptcy and the waiver of the annual fee for a company that emerges from bankruptcy and relists during the same year that it has previously paid an annual fee, the Commission notes that this fee reduction or waiver is a temporary one, designed to enable recently bankrupt companies to manage the costs associated with listing, consistent with the desire in bankruptcy proceeding to ensure that creditors are paid as much as possible. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that reduction or waiver of the Exchange's fees in these cases is equitable.
The Commission also notes that the Exchange has represented that the waiver of entry fees and the reduction or waiver of annual listing fees in these limited circumstances should not affect its commitment of resources to its regulatory oversight of the listing process or its other regulatory programs.
Further, the proposed fee changes would not have any impact on whether a company is actually eligible to list on the Exchange. The Commission expects, and the Exchange has represented, that a full and independent review of compliance with Nasdaq listing standards will be conducted for any company seeking to take advantage of the proposed fee changes, in the same manner as for any company that applies for listing on the Exchange.
In light of these arguments, the Commission agrees that the proposed waiver and fee cap, which are retroactively effective to April 13, 2007, the date of the filing of the proposed rule change, do not constitute an inequitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges, do not permit unfair discrimination between issuers, and are generally consistent with the Act.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent.
The Federal Highway Administration is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the proposed Loop 375 Ce
The proposed Border Highway West Extension would extend approximately 13.8 miles and would provide a continuous route from I-10 east of State Highway (SH) 20 (Mesa Street) to Sunland Park Drive continuing on Loop 375 to end at Untied States Highway (US) 54.
Mr. Donald Davis, District Engineer (South), Federal Highway Administration, Texas Division, 300 East 8th Street, Room 826, Austin, Texas 78701; Telephone (512) 536-5960.
The current facility exists as follows:
• Six-lane expressway from I-10 to Sunland Park.
• Four-lane facility along US 85 from New Mexico Route 273 to US 62 (Paisano Drive).
• Four-lane boulevard from Paisano Drive to Santa Fe Street.
• Four six-lane boulevard transitioning to a six-lane barrier separated controlled access facility from Santa Fe Street to US 54.
The Border Highway West Extension EIS will evaluate build and no-build alternatives. In addition to the build and no-build/no-action alternatives, Transportation System Management (TSM)/Transportation Demand Management (TDM), mass transit, and tolled and non-tolled alternatives will be examined. Also, the EIS will study potential impacts from construction and operation of the proposed roadway including, but not limited to, the following: transportation impacts (construction detours, construction traffic, mobility improvements), air and noise impacts from construction equipment and operation of the facilities, water quality impacts from construction area and roadway storm water runoff, impacts to waters of the United States, impacts to historic and archeological resources, impacts to floodplain, socio-economic resources (including Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency population) indirect and cumulative impacts, land use, vegetation, wildlife, impacts to and/or potential displacement of residences and businesses, and aesthetic and visual resources. Anticipated federal permits, pending selection of alternatives and field surveys may include, but are not limited to, the following: Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act), Section 401/404 (Clean Water Act), and Section 7 (Endangered Species Act). A Project Coordination Plan will be provided in accordance with Public Law 109-59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Title VI, Section 6002, Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decision Making, August 10, 2005, to facilitate and document the lead agencies; structured interaction with the public and other agencies and to inform the public and other agencies of how the coordination will be accomplished. The Project Coordination Plan will promote early and continuous involvement from stakeholders, agencies, and the public as well as described the proposed project, the roles of the agencies and the public, the project need and purpose, schedule, level of detail for alternatives analysis, methodologies to be used in the environmental analysis, and the proposed process for coordination and communication.
This Project Coordination Plan is designed to be part of a flexible and adaptable process. The Plan will be available for public review, inputs, and comments at public meetings, including scoping meetings and hearings held throughout the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation process, and upon request at the TxDOT El Paso District. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. Chapter 1 Subchapter 1 Section 139 of SAFETEA-LU, cooperating agencies, participating agencies and the public will be given an opportunity for input in the development of the project. Two public scoping meetings, conducted in an open house format, are planned to be held in October 2007. These will be the first in a series of meetings to solicit public comments throughout the planning process on the proposed action as part of the national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
The scoping meetings will provide opportunities for participating agencies, cooperating agencies, and the public to be involved in defining the need and purpose for the proposed project, and to assist in determining the range of alternatives for consideration in the EIS and alternative evaluation methodologies. Notices of the public scoping meetings will be published in newspapers of general circulation in the project area at least 30 days prior to the meetings, and again approximately 10 days prior to the meetings. In addition to the public scoping meetings, correspondence describing the proposed action and soliciting comments to be considered during the scoping process will be sent to the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and to organizations and individuals who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the project. Public scoping meetings and public hearings will be held during appropriate phases of the project development process. Public notices will be given stating the date, time and location of each and will be published in English as well as Spanish. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to a public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this
A proposed schedule for completion of the environmental review process is not available at this time; however, will become accessible for public review at a futures date.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of application.
The Maritime Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard announce that they have received an application for the licensing of a natural gas deepwater port, and that the application appears to contain the required information to proceed. This notice summarizes the applicant's plans and the procedures that will be followed in considering the application.
The Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, requires any public hearing on this application to be held not later than 240 days after this notice, and requires a decision on the application to be made not later than 90 days after the final public hearing.
The public docket for this application, USCG-2006-26844, is maintained by the: Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Docket contents are available for public inspection and copying at this address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Facility's telephone number is 202-366-9329 and the fax number is 202-493-2251. The Web site for electronic submissions or for electronic access to docket contents is
Roddy Bachman, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone: 202-372-1752, e-mail:
On August 17, 2006, the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration received an application from Woodside Natural Gas Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodside Petroleum LTD., for all Federal authorizations required for a license to own, construct, and operate a deepwater port authorized under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1501
According to the Deepwater Port Act, a deepwater port is a fixed or floating manmade structure other than a vessel, or a group of structures, located beyond State seaward boundaries and used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, and further handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to any State.
Deepwater ports require a license issued by the Maritime Administrator (by delegated authority from the Secretary of Transportation, published on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36496)). Statutory and regulatory requirements for licensing appear in 33 U.S.C. 1501
The Act provides deadlines for processing applications. After determining that an application contains the required information, public hearings on the application must be held within 240 days, and the Maritime Administrator must render a decision on the application within 330 days. Additional
At least one public hearing will take place in each adjacent coastal State. For purposes of the Act, California is the adjacent coastal State for this application. Other States can apply for adjacent coastal State status in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1508(a)(2).
Woodside Natural Gas proposes to construct, own, and operate a deepwater port with associated ship-to-ship transfer (STS) location(s) and single point mooring (SPM) buoys for the receiving of regasification liquefied natural gas carriers (RLNGCs), offshore and onshore natural gas pipelines, and a receiving and custody transfer facility (RCTS) to deliver natural gas with an annualized rate of 0.4 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) and a peak of 1.1 bcf/d into the Southern California market on initial development and an annualized rate of 1.0 bcf/d and a peak of up to 1.6 bcf/d at full project development.
The deepwater port would be located in the Federal waters of the Santa Monica Basin, 21 miles from the nearest point on the mainland of Southern California and 18 miles from the western end of Santa Catalina Island, approximately 27 miles southwest of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), in a water depth of approximately 3,000 feet. It would consist of two single point mooring (SPM) buoys that serve as cargo discharge system connections for RLNGCs, a mooring/anchoring array, four flexible risers that connect the SPMs to four seafloor riser end manifolds, two pipeline end manifolds (PLEMs) and two parallel 24-inch pipelines beginning on the seafloor at the PLEMs beneath the SPM buoys and continuing to shore. The SPMs would be located approximately 5 nautical miles (5.75 miles) outside established shipping lanes (SPM NE: Latitude: 33°41′52″ N, Longitude: 118°48′33″ W and SPM SW: Latitude: 33°39′58″ N, Longitude: 118°49′15″ W).
Woodside has proposed three ship-to-ship transfer locations ranging from approximately 35 to 90 nautical miles (40 to 104 miles) from shore and 55 to 111 nautical miles (63 to 128 miles)
As proposed, LNG would be delivered from overseas by LNGCs and transferred to a Woodside RLNGC at one of the three STS locations. The RLNGC would then be sailed and moored to a SPM, where the LNG would be regasified into natural gas and delivered to shore via two new parallel 24-inch pipelines. The RLNGC would then return to a STS location.
The RLNGCs would use a turret system with the SPMs to allow the RLNGC to weathervane (rotate) around the buoy. Onboard utilities and systems associated with RLNCG operations would include electric power generation and distribution, instrumentation and controls, and fire and safety systems. The RLNGC would include all marine systems, communications, navigation aids and equipment necessary to safely conduct RLNGC carrier operations, receive and vaporize product.
The RLNGCs would use a forced draft ambient air LNG vaporization system using a combination of intermediate fluid and direct ambient air with heat provided by ambient air called the Woodside Hybrid Air Vaporization (WHAV) concept.
Natural gas would be delivered onshore via two 24-inch parallel pipelines, approximately 35 miles in length. These pipelines would come onshore on the north end of LAX at Dockweiler Beach. It is proposed that horizontal directional drilling be used to install the pipelines beneath land and seabed in offshore City waters and underneath the beach and adjacent dunes from a point about 1000 feet inland from the high tide mark just east of Vista del Mar on LAX property.
Woodside would lease/franchise from the City a 300 foot wide corridor on submerged City lands out to the 3 nautical mile (3.45 mile) offshore limit of the City boundary. On-shore pipelines would be constructed on City-owned land from the high tide line to Pershing Drive, passing under the beach and the El Segundo Dunes, and underground through City streets. The route would include Westchester Parkway/Arbor Vitae Street, then south on Bellanca Avenue to the receiving and custody transfer station (RCTS) and adjacent Inert Gas Injection Facility (IGIF) located at 5651 96th Street, Los Angeles, about 4 miles inland. A single 36-inch pipeline would run approximately a quarter of a mile back north on Bellanca Avenue to Arbor Vitae, then to the existing Southern California Gas natural gas pipeline infrastructure with Tie-in #1 at the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and Arbor Vitae Street. A second stage, with development depending on demand, may include additional pipelines and tie-ins that are an approximate 11-mile single 24-inch line from Tie-In #1 along Arbor Vitae, Prairie, Manchester, Firestone, and California to Tie-In #3 at Santa Ana Street and Otis Avenue in Huntington Park and an approximate 1 mile single 24-inch line from Manchester Street to Central Ave to Tie-In #2 at the intersection of S. Central Avenue and E. Century Boulevard. These pipeline routes include running through the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, South Gate and Huntington Park. At full development, Southern California Gas would own and operate the system downstream of the RCTS.
The application also includes an alternative DWP location in the Gulf of Santa Catalina approximately 30 miles from Huntington Beach at latitude 117°56′28.53″ west, longitude 33°13′24.88″ north with a 30 mile pipeline running north to a shore crossing at the AES power plant in Huntington Beach. It would cross through the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Westminster, Garden Grove, Santa Anna, and Orange. The pipeline would be trenched through city streets traveling north along Newland Street towards Bolsa Avenue; turn east at Bolsa Ave. (1st Street); turn north at the OCTA Metrolink Right of Way and join Lincoln Ave; east on Fairhaven Ave.; north at Cambridge Street; and finally west on Palm Ave. where the pipeline would connect to the SCG tie-in in Orange.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that PHMSA has forwarded an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection. This information collection is a survey of hazardous liquid operators to obtain information on unregulated low-stress hazardous liquid pipeline characteristics. The purpose of this notice is to invite the public to submit comments on the request to OMB.
Submit comments on or before October 9, 2007.
Send comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of Transportation, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Lane Miller at (405) 954-4969, or by e-mail at
The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) enacted into law on December 29, 2006, reauthorizes PHMSA-administered pipeline safety programs for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Section 4 of the PIPES Act requires that PHMSA issue regulations by December 31, 2007, subjecting all low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines to the same standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA currently exempts low stress pipelines from regulations except for those in populated areas and crossing navigable waterways. On May 18, 2007, PHMSA published a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to apply all Federal Hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations to a specific set of these remaining low rural low-stress lines (72 FR 28008).
Low-stress pipelines are pipelines operating at 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe. PHMSA does not have data on the total extent of currently unregulated hazardous liquid low-stress pipelines in the United States. To address this gap in the data and to obtain a more accurate understanding of the unregulated hazardous liquid low-stress pipelines, PHMSA is requesting OMB approval to conduct a one-time information collection survey. To the extent possible, all operators of hazardous liquid pipelines will be surveyed about low stress mileage (including interplant pipeline mileage), diameter, pipeline material, products transported, and location.
In order to reach as many operators as possible, the survey will be delivered electronically to each of the companies currently operating regulated hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA will also attempt to reach companies that own and/or operate currently unregulated pipelines exclusively by working with industry associations to announce and distribute the survey via e-mail newsletters to members. Respondents will be able to print an electronic version of the survey and mail a hard copy, or complete the survey on-line and e-mail it. Participation in the survey is optional.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, PHMSA is required to obtain OMB approval for information collections. The term “information collection” includes all work related to preparing and disseminating information related to this proposed information collection including: Completing paperwork, gathering information, and conducting telephone calls. PHMSA published a notice providing a 60-day period for comments on the proposed information collection in the
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Notice of exemption.
The Board grants an exemption, under 49 U.S.C. 10502, from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 for Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway's (CPR), a Class I rail carrier, acquisition and operation of BNSF Railway Company's (BNSF), a Class I rail carrier, property interests in 35.26 miles of rail lines that are jointly owned by CPR and BNSF and a contiguous 9.96-mile rail line that is solely owned by BNSF,
The exemption will be effective on September 7, 2007. Petitions to reopen must be filed by September 27, 2007.
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35068, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of all pleadings must be served on petitioners' representatives: Karl Morell, Counsel for BNSF Railway Company, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005; Richard E. Weicher, BNSF Railway Company, 2500 Lou Menk Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76131-2828; and W. Karl Hansen, Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional Association, Counsel for Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
Melissa Ziembicki, (202) 245-0386. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, e-mail, or call: ASAP Document Solutions, 9332 Annapolis Rd., Suite 103, Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail:
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Buttrey, and Commissioner Mulvey.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of two individuals whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995,
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers of the individuals identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978.
Jennifer Houghton, Assistant Director, Designation Investigations, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2420.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12978 (the “Order”) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code.
In the Order, the President declared a national emergency to address actions of significant foreign narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, and the unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm that they cause in the United States and abroad. The Order imposes economic sanctions on foreign persons who are determined to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or materially to assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the order; or to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to the Order.
The Order included 4 individuals in the Annex, which resulted in the blocking of all property or interests in property of these persons that was or thereafter came within the United States or the possession or control of U.S. persons. The Order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to designate additional persons or entities determined to meet certain criteria set forth in EO 12978.
On June 20, 2007, the Director of OFAC removed from the list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers the individuals listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to EO 12978.
The list of the unblocked individuals follows:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 9 newly-designated individuals and entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers.”
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the 9 individuals and entities identified in this notice pursuant to Executive Order 12978 is effective on August 30, 2007.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United states, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are on hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (3) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or service in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities or persons designated in or pursuant to this order; and (4) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to this Order.
On August 30, 2007, the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, as well as the Secretary of Homeland Security, designated 9 entities and individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order.
The list of additional designees is as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action on two optional methods for relative accuracy audits of mercury monitoring systems installed on combustion flue gas streams and several amendments to related mercury monitoring provisions. This action approves two optional mercury (Hg) emissions test methods for potential use in conjunction with an existing regulatory requirement for Hg emissions monitoring, as well as several revisions to the mercury monitoring provisions themselves. This action is in regard to the testing and monitoring requirements for mercury specified in the
This rule is effective on November 6, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 9, 2007. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0164, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Either Mr. William Grimley, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (E143-02), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-1065, facsimile number (919) 541-0516, e-mail address:
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. The most important benefit of direct final rulemaking for this action is to provide: (1) Additional reference method options, and (2) judicious revisions to mercury monitoring provisions specified in the
If EPA receives adverse comment on one or more distinct provisions of this rulemaking, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this direct final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this direct final rule to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this direct final rule is also available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this direct final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
On May 18, 2005, in the preamble of the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) (70 FR 28608), EPA stated its intention to propose and promulgate an instrumental reference method as an alternative to the use of ASTM Method D6784-02 (the Ontario Hydro Method) to perform Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATAs) of Hg continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) and sorbent trap monitoring systems used to monitor Hg emissions from coal-fired power plants.
In comments on the proposed CAMR, commenters had two primary objections to the use of the Ontario Hydro Method as the reference test method for RATAs. Some expressed concern that the complexity of this wet chemical method could lead to results that would cause a properly functioning Hg CEMS to fail a RATA. Other commenters noted that, unlike instrumental reference methods used to audit CEMS for SO
Since the CAMR was promulgated, EPA has proposed changes to 40 CFR part 75, which would allow the use of EPA Method 29, with enhanced quality-assurance procedures, as an alternative Hg reference method (71 FR 49257; August 22, 2006). Although Method 29 is somewhat simpler than the Ontario Hydro Method and is more familiar to stack testers and State regulatory agencies, it is also a wet chemistry method and is, therefore, subject to the same limitations that make the Ontario Hydro method less than optimal for RATA testing.
In view of these considerations, EPA believes that for RATA testing, an instrumental Hg reference method
Another commenter to the proposed CAMR recommended that the sorbent trap monitoring approach, now specified in 40 CFR part 75, appendix K, be considered for use as a reference method. Although EPA did not commit to establishing a sorbent trap reference method at the time of CAMR promulgation, stakeholder interest in this methodology has increased significantly. In an August 22, 2006
This direct final rule also includes several carefully considered amendments to the Hg emission monitoring provisions of 40 CFR parts 72 and 75. EPA believes these amendments will facilitate implementation of the CAMR by clarifying portions of that rule and by providing added regulatory flexibility to the affected sources.
This direct final rule allows for the earliest possible use of two optional reference test methods for measuring total vapor phase mercury emissions from stationary sources as well as several related amendments to the Hg monitoring provisions of the CAMR. Both an instrumental test method and a sorbent trap test method for measurement of total vapor phase mercury emissions are being added to Appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 as approved alternatives to the Ontario Hydro Method and EPA Method 29 to perform RATAs of installed mercury monitoring systems. The two methods are discussed below, and the related amendments are explained in detail later in this section.
The first method being added to appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 today is titled “Method 30A—Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure).” In Method 30A, a sample of the effluent gas is continuously extracted and conveyed to an analyzer capable of measuring the total vapor phase Hg concentration. Elemental and oxidized mercury (i.e., Hg
Method 30A is performance based in keeping with the criteria established under our Notice of Intent to Implement Performance Based Measurement Systems for Environmental Monitoring (62 FR 52098, October 6, 1997). Use of the performance-based measurement approach will allow for continued development and application of new, improved, and more cost-effective Hg measurement technologies while ensuring the collection of data of known quality.
Based on EPA's experience in conducting test programs to evaluate the procedures and performance criteria included in Method 30A, EPA recognizes that although prototypes of all equipment needed to perform this method have been successfully demonstrated in the field, at present the equipment needed to follow all procedures required by the method is commercially available only on a limited basis, and is being further refined. One of the issues of greatest concern in the development of an instrumental reference method for Hg has been the design of the sampling probe. Most of the commercially-available probes suitable for Hg measurement are very heavy (over 100 lbs.) making it difficult to move the probe from point-to-point and port-to-port for Hg stratification testing and/or sample traverses. Much progress is being made in probe redesign. One manufacturer has recently developed a probe that weighs less than 40 lbs., samples at significantly lower flow rates, and is suitable for dynamic spiking. Additional field testing of this probe and others currently under development is underway, and EPA plans to continue to actively encourage equipment development and evaluation. To encourage the use of Method 30A, including further development of the supporting equipment, which we believe will eventually enable source testers to perform Hg monitoring system RATAs more efficiently and will become the reference method of choice for many testing companies and affected sources, we are deferring the requirement for implementation of the dynamic spiking and Hg stratification test procedures until January 1, 2009. EPA believes this deferral is reasonable because Hg monitoring data reported to EPA in 2009 will not be used in the trading of Hg allowances, as allowance accounting under the CAMR does not begin until 2010. Source testers are encouraged to use this time to acquire the necessary equipment and familiarize themselves with these procedures. Also, for all emissions test programs and RATAs performed under CAMR prior to January 1, 2009, we are allowing either: (1) A 12-point traverse for sulfur dioxide (SO
The second method being added to appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 today is titled “Method 30B—Use of Sorbent Traps to Measure Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources.” In Method 30B, a sample of the effluent gas is continuously drawn through a series of tubes containing activated carbon or another sorbent material. After sampling, the tubes are sealed. The Hg captured by the sorbent is then either: (1) Thermally desorbed and analyzed; or (2) the tubes are transferred to a laboratory for extraction of Hg and analysis. Like Method 30A, Method 30B is a performance-based method and contains performance specifications and procedures for hardware selection and calibration, sorbent spiking, and analytical recovery/analysis which allow for development and application of new, improved, and more cost-effective Hg measurement technologies while still ensuring the collection of data of known quality. In particular, Method 30B contains five key measurement performance tests designed to ensure: (1) Selection of a sorbent and analytical technique combination capable of quantitative collection and analysis of gaseous Hg, (2) collection during field testing of enough Hg on each sorbent trap to be reliably quantified, and (3) adequate performance of the method for each test program.
In considering development of a sorbent trap-based reference method, EPA has reviewed historical emissions data where sorbent trap measurement systems were operated concurrently with either the Ontario Hydro Method or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). EPA has also conducted several field test evaluations of sorbent trap systems versus the Ontario Hydro Method in collaboration with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Based on these efforts, we have concluded that a sorbent trap-based technique coupled with appropriate performance criteria and QA procedures can provide Hg emissions data of quality comparable to that produced by the Ontario Hydro Method. Data supporting this conclusion are presented in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0164.
As we have done for Method 30A, for Method 30B emission tests and RATAs performed prior to January 1, 2009, we are allowing either: (1) A 12-point traverse for sulfur dioxide (SO
This direct final rule also amends Performance Specification 12A of appendix B to part 60 by adding Methods 30A and 30B to the list of reference methods acceptable for relative accuracy testing of Hg emissions monitoring systems. Once this direct final rule becomes effective, the reference methods acceptable for Hg measurement in Performance Specification 12A will include Methods 29, 30A, 30B, and ASTM D6784-02.
With today's action, EPA is taking the opportunity to include several considered revisions to the Hg emission monitoring provisions of 40 CFR parts 72 and 75 as described in detail below. EPA is including these revisions in this direct final rule because we believe that they will facilitate implementation of the Hg monitoring under CAMR.
First, § 75.81(a) is being revised to confirm that the Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems required under subpart I of part 75 are to measure the total vapor phase mass concentration of Hg in the flue gas, including both the elemental and oxidized forms of Hg, expressed in units of micrograms per standard cubic meter (μg/scm). Although it is generally understood that total vapor phase Hg is the regulated pollutant under CAMR, it recently was brought to EPA's attention that subpart I of part 75 does not explicitly state that Hg monitoring systems only need to measure total vapor phase Hg. The amended language in § 75.81(a) clarifies this.
Second, paragraph (i) in § 75.15 is being revised and a new paragraph (d)(2)(ix) is being added to § 75.20, to codify the rules for using optional non-redundant (“cold”) backup Hg monitoring systems and like-kind replacement Hg analyzers, when the primary Hg monitoring system is unable to provide quality-assured data. For the other types of monitoring systems required by part 75, these monitoring options have been in place since May 1999 (see 64 FR 28597, May 26, 1999). Today's action simply extends these provisions to Hg monitoring systems. Through the years, the regulated community has found these backup monitoring options to be beneficial, in that they minimize the use of missing data substitution procedures during outages of the primary monitoring system.
In particular, § 75.20(d)(2)(ix) specifies that a non-redundant backup Hg monitoring system can either be a Hg CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system. The non-redundant backup Hg
When a certified non-redundant backup Hg CEMS or a like-kind replacement Hg analyzer is brought into service, a three-point linearity check with elemental Hg standards and a single-point system integrity check will be required. Alternatively, a three-level system integrity check may be performed instead of these two tests. When a certified non-redundant backup sorbent trap monitoring system is brought into service, only the routine sampling and QA procedures of § 75.15 and appendix K of part 75 will be required.
Each non-redundant backup Hg monitoring system and each like-kind replacement Hg analyzer will be subject to the applicable ongoing QA requirements, restrictions and conditions specified in § 75.20(d)(2). For certified non-redundant backup Hg CEMS and like-kind replacement Hg analyzers, the weekly system integrity checks described in section 2.6 of appendix B of 40 CFR part 75 will also be required as long as the system or analyzer remains in service, unless the daily calibration error tests of the analyzer are done using NIST-traceable oxidized Hg standards.
Third, a new paragraph (k) is being added to § 75.15 that: (1) Clarifies that, when the RATA of an appendix K sorbent trap monitoring system is performed, the type of sorbent material used in the appendix K sorbent traps must be the same as that used for daily operation of the appendix K monitoring system, and (2) allows the appendix K traps used during RATA testing to be smaller than the traps used for daily operation of the appendix K monitoring system. This change will be particularly advantageous at very low Hg concentrations as it will facilitate shorter RATA test run times. Parallel changes are being made to section 6.5.7 of appendix A of part 75 to be consistent with the provisions of § 75.15(k). Section 6.5.7 currently requires the appendix K sorbent traps used for the RATA to be the same size as the traps used for daily operation of the appendix K monitoring system.
Fourth, today's action revises a number of sections of part 75, appendix K, pertaining to the use of sorbent trap monitoring systems. EPA is withdrawing the requirement to use the percentage recovery of the elemental Hg spike in section 3 of each sorbent trap to adjust or “normalize” the Hg mass collected in sections 1 and 2 of the trap. The requirement to spike the third section of each trap is being retained and data from each pair of traps must still be invalidated if either or both spike recovery percentages fall outside the acceptable limits;
Regarding the range of acceptable third section spike recoveries, EPA is not changing the 75 to 125 percent acceptance criteria. As previously noted, early field experience with appendix K monitoring systems has demonstrated that spike recoveries within this range are achievable. However, recent appendix K data indicate that more stringent acceptance criteria may be justifiable. It appears that there has been a marked improvement in third section spike recovery percentages. Recoveries in the range from 85 to 115 percent are consistently being achieved. If this trend continues, EPA may propose to tighten the spike recovery acceptance criteria in a future rulemaking. Toward that end, EPA will continue to collect and evaluate third section spike recovery data from appendix K monitoring systems in the months ahead.
To effect these changes to appendix K, section 11.5 is being removed and reserved; section 10.4 is being revised; Equations K-6 and K-7 are being redesignated as Equations K-5 and K-6, respectively; and the definition of “M*” in redesignated Equation K-5 is being revised.
EPA is also revising appendix K to allow the owner or operator to use other types of gas flow meters besides the conventional dry gas meter (DGM) to quantify sample gas volume. Since the publication of appendix K (see 70 FR 28695, May 18, 2005), numerous requests have been received from the regulated community to allow this flexibility. In response to these requests, EPA initiated an investigation of the feasibility of replacing the DGM in a sorbent trap monitoring system with a thermal mass flow meter. As a result of its investigation, EPA has concluded that a properly calibrated thermal mass flow meter can be at least as accurate as a DGM. The mass flow meter is also a more modern technology than the DGM; since it has no moving parts, it may be more reliable than a DGM for continuous duty.
Having found one type of gas flow meter that can measure as accurately as a DGM, EPA is persuaded that there may be other commercially available gas flow meter technologies that are equally capable and may be suitable for appendix K applications. Accordingly, EPA has decided that a performance-based approach, rather than a prescriptive one, is more appropriate for appendix K gas flow meters. Today's action allows the use of any type of gas flow meter that is capable of accurately measuring gas volumes to within 2 percent.
Section 9.2.2.1 of appendix K now requires the manufacturer of the gas flow meter to perform all necessary set-
To calibrate the gas flow meter, the owner or operator may either follow the basic procedures in section 10.3 or section 16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 of part 60 for calibration of dry gas meters, or alternatively, may temporarily install a reference gas flow meter (RGFM) at the discharge of the appendix K monitoring system while the monitoring system is in operation and make concurrent measurements of dry stack gas volume with the RGFM and the appendix K gas flow meter. If the latter option is chosen, the RGFM may either be a gas flow metering device that has been calibrated according to section 10.3.1 or section 16 of Method 5 or a NIST-traceable volumetric calibration device with an accuracy of ±1 percent. Note that this alternative calibration technique allows required QA checks to be performed with little or no disruption of the operation of the sorbent trap monitoring system.
Regardless of which calibration approach is used, a calibration factor, Y
In this direct final action, the majority of the revised rule provisions pertaining to gas flow meters can be found in sections 5.1.5 and 9.2 of appendix K. Minor revisions to sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.5, Figure K-1, and Table K-1 are being made to be consistent with the changes to sections 5.1.5 and 9.2. In several other places throughout part 75 and in the definition of “Sorbent trap monitoring system” in part 72, the term “dry gas meter,” when used in reference to a sorbent trap monitoring system, is being replaced with the more general term “gas flow meter.” Revisions to section 1.5.2 of appendix B of part 75 will require the gas flow meter calibration procedures and protocols for periodic recalibration of reference gas flow meters to be included in the QA plan for the affected unit.
This direct final action, which approves the use of two optional methods (Methods 30A and 30B) for determining total vapor phase Hg emissions from stationary sources, is being taken in response to numerous public comments concerning the desirability of allowing the use of these types of methods to comply with the Hg emission monitoring requirements of the CAMR for electric utility steam generating units. In the May 18, 2005 final rule (70 FR 28636), we summarized the public comments that we received regarding the use of an instrumental method as an alternative to the Ontario Hydro Method specified in the proposed CAMR. As noted earlier in this preamble, the commenters primarily objected to the required use of the Ontario Hydro Method as the reference method for the RATAs of Hg monitoring systems and expressed concern about the complexities in the method and the amount of time that is required to perform the testing and to receive the results. Commenters pointed out that it could take days to complete the testing and weeks to receive the results from a laboratory. Commenters claimed that for the cap and trade program proposed under CAMR, these delays could lead to significant implementation problems with respect to the timely reporting of emissions data. Further, if a RATA should be failed or invalidated (
Since promulgation of CAMR, we have continued to communicate with stakeholders interested in the Hg monitoring requirements of the rule, and we have come to more clearly understand that it is of great interest to the affected entities to have additional reference method options available for relative accuracy testing of installed Hg monitoring systems as soon as possible. Accordingly, at the end of 2005, we began developing an instrumental test method for Hg and solicited feedback from the stakeholders on a working draft of the method (referred to as PRE-009 at
The general beneficial impacts of this direct final rule to approve the two optional Hg test methods and amend targeted portions of 40 CFR parts 72 and 75 include: Allowing affected sources to choose the use of an alternative to the Ontario Hydro Method without the administrative burden of applying for Administrator approval on a case-by-case basis; providing the availability of real-time RATA results (Method 30A); reducing the overall RATA testing times; reducing costs relative to the Ontario Hydro Method; and providing additional flexibility in appendix K sorbent trap monitoring and backup monitoring approaches. The two optional methods being approved by this direct final rule are considered to be comparable to the Ontario Hydro Method in terms of the quality of the results produced. Over the last year, EPA has collaborated with EPRI and some of its members in a number of field test programs that have confirmed that the instrumental reference method approved/established in this notice will provide data comparable to or better
Assuming we do not receive adverse comment on this direct final rulemaking and Methods 30A and 30B become final, we plan to post information relevant to Method 30A and 30B applications and equipment advances on EPA's Web site at
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 4 billion kilowatt-hr per year of electricity usage, depending on the size definition for the affected North American Industry Classification System code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory requirements, but rather provides clarification and additional regulatory flexibilty.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this direct final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year, nor does this rule significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because it contains no requirements that impose new obligations upon them. Thus, this direct final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The use of these methods is optional on the part of the regulated entities listed. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this direct final rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This direct final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking involves technical standards. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA in a previous related rulemaking (70 FR 28606, May 18, 2005) identified an acceptable VCS for measuring Hg emissions. The standard ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary sources (Ontario Hydro Method) was cited in that final rule for measuring Hg emissions. After today's action becomes effective, the Ontario Hydro Method will remain an acceptable method for measuring Hg emissions.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This direct final rule does not affect or relax the control measures on sources impacted by this rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors, Electric utilities, Mercury, Test methods and procedures.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors, Electric utilities, Mercury, Test methods and procedures.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors, Electric utilities, Mercury, Test methods and procedures.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.
Method 30A is a procedure for measuring total vapor phase mercury (Hg) emissions from stationary sources using an instrumental analyzer. This method is particularly appropriate for performing emissions testing and for conducting relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) of mercury continuous emissions monitoring systems (Hg CEMS) and sorbent trap monitoring systems at coal-fired combustion sources. Quality assurance and quality control
(a) Method 1—Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources.
(b) Method 4—Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases.
1.1 Analytes. What does this method determine? This method is designed to measure the mass concentration of total vapor phase Hg in flue gas, which represents the sum of elemental Hg (Hg
1.2 Applicability. When is this method required? Method 30A is offered as a reference method for emission testing and for RATAs of Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems at coal-fired boilers. Method 30A may also be specified for other source categories in the future, either by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), emissions trading programs, State Implementation Plans (SIP), or operating permits that require measurement of Hg concentrations in stationary source emissions to determine compliance with an applicable emission standard or limit, or to conduct RATAs of Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems.
1.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQO). How good must my collected data be? Method 30A has been designed to provide data of high and known quality for Hg emission testing and for relative accuracy testing of Hg monitoring systems including Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems. In these and other applications, the principle objective is to ensure the accuracy of the data at the actual emission levels encountered. To meet this objective, calibration standards prepared according to an EPA traceability protocol must be used and measurement system performance tests are required.
In this method, a sample of the effluent gas is continuously extracted and conveyed to an analyzer capable of measuring the total vapor phase Hg concentration. Elemental and oxidized mercury (i.e., Hg
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
Interferences will vary among instruments and potential instrument-specific spectral and matrix interferences must be evaluated through the interference test and the dynamic spiking tests.
This method may require you to work with hazardous materials and in hazardous conditions. You are encouraged to establish safety procedures before using the method. Among other precautions, you should become familiar with the safety recommendations in the gas analyzer user's manual. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations concerning use of compressed gas cylinders and noxious gases may apply.
6.1 What do I need for the measurement system? This method is intended to be applicable to multiple instrumental technologies. You may use any equipment and supplies that meet the following specifications.
6.1.1 All wetted sampling system components, including probe components prior to the point at which the calibration gas is introduced, must be chemically inert to all Hg species. Materials such as perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) Teflon
6.1.2 The interference, system calibration error, system integrity, drift and dynamic spiking test criteria must all be met by the system used.
6.1.3 The system must be capable of measuring and controlling sample flow rate.
6.1.4 All system components prior to the Hg
6.2 Measurement System Components. Figure 30A-1 in Section 17.0 is an example schematic of a Method 30A measurement system.
6.2.1 Sample Probe. The probe must be made of the appropriate materials as noted in Section 6.1.1, heated when necessary (see Section 6.1.4), configured with ports for introduction of calibration and spiking gases, and of sufficient length to traverse all of the sample points.
6.2.2 Filter or Other Particulate Removal Device. The filter or other particulate removal device is considered to be a part of the measurement system, must be made of appropriate materials as noted in Section 6.1.1, and must be included in all system tests.
6.2.3 Sample Line. The sample line that connects the probe to the converter, conditioning system and analyzer must be made of appropriate materials as noted in Section 6.1.1.
6.2.4 Conditioning Equipment. For dry basis measurements, a condenser, dryer or other suitable device is required to remove moisture continuously from the sample gas. Any equipment needed to heat the probe, or sample line to avoid condensation prior to the moisture removal component is also required. For wet basis systems, you must keep the sample above its dew point either by: (1) Heating the sample line and all sample transport components up to the inlet of the analyzer (and, for hot-wet extractive systems, also heating the analyzer) or (2) by diluting the sample prior to analysis using a dilution probe system. The components required to do either of the above are considered to be conditioning equipment.
6.2.5 Sampling Pump. A pump is needed to push or pull the sample gas through the system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the response time of the measurement system. If a mechanical sample pump is used and its surfaces are in contact with the sample gas prior to detection, the pump must be leak free and must be constructed of a material that is non-reactive to the gas being sampled (see Section 6.1.1). For dilution-type measurement systems, an ejector pump (eductor) may be used to create a sufficient vacuum that sample gas will be drawn through a critical orifice at a constant rate. The ejector pump may be constructed of any material that is non-reactive to the gas being sampled.
6.2.6 Calibration Gas System(s). One or more systems may be needed to introduce calibration gases into the measurement system. A system should be able to flood the sampling probe sufficiently to prevent entry of gas from the effluent stream.
6.2.7 Dynamic Spiking Port. For the purposes of the dynamic spiking procedure described in Section 8.2.7, the measurement system must be equipped with a port to allow introduction of the dynamic spike gas stream with the sample gas stream, at a point as close as possible to the inlet of the probe so as to ensure adequate mixing. The same port used for system calibrations and calibration error checks may be used for dynamic spiking purposes.
6.2.8 Sample Gas Delivery. The sample line may feed directly to a converter, to a by-pass valve (for speciating systems), or to a sample manifold. All valve and/or manifold components must be made of material that is non-reactive to the gas sampled and the calibration gas, and must be configured to safely discharge any excess gas.
6.2.9 Hg Analyzer. An instrument is required that continuously measures the total vapor phase Hg in the gas stream and meets the applicable specifications in Section 13.0.
6.2.10 Data Recorder. A recorder, such as a computerized data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), digital recorder, strip chart, or data logger, is required for recording measurement data.
6.3 Moisture Measurement System. If correction of the measured Hg emissions for moisture is required (see Section 8.5), either Method 4 in appendix A-3 to this part or other moisture measurement methods approved by the Administrator will be needed to measure stack gas moisture content.
7.1 Calibration Gases. What calibration gases do I need? You will need calibration gases of known concentrations of Hg
The following calibration gas concentrations are required:
7.1.1 High-Level Gas. Equal to the selected calibration span.
7.1.2 Mid-Level Gas. 40 to 60 percent of the calibration span.
7.1.3 Low-Level Gas. 10 to 30 percent of the calibration span.
7.1.4 Zero Gas. No detectable Hg.
7.1.5 Dynamic Spike Gas. The exact concentration of the HgCl
7.2 Interference Test. What reagents do I need for the interference test? Use the appropriate test gases listed in Table 30A-3 in Section 17.0 (i.e., the potential interferents for the source to be tested, as identified by the instrument manufacturer) to conduct the interference check. These gases need not be of protocol gas quality.
Figure 30A-2 in Section 17.0 presents an overview of the test procedures required by this method. Since you may choose different options to comply with certain performance criteria, you must identify the specific options and associated frequencies you select and document your results in regard to the performance criteria.
8.1 Sample Point Selection. What sampling site and sampling points do I select?
8.1.1 When this method is used solely for Hg emission testing (e.g., to determine compliance with an emission standard or limit), use twelve sampling points located according to Table 1-1 or Table 1-2 of Method 1 in appendix A-1 to this part. Alternatively, you may conduct a stratification test as described in Section 8.1.3 to determine the number and location of the sampling points.
8.1.2 When this method is used for relative accuracy testing of a Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system, follow the sampling site selection and sampling point layout procedures for gas monitor RATA testing described in the appropriate performance specification or applicable regulation (e.g., Performance Specification 2, section 8.1.3 of appendix B to this part or section 6.5.6 of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter), with one exception. If you elect to perform stratification testing as part of the sampling point selection process, perform the testing in accordance with Section 8.1.3 of this method (see also “Summary Table of QA/QC Requirements” in Section 9.0).
8.1.3 Determination of Stratification. If you elect to perform stratification testing as part of the sampling point selection process and the test results show your effluent gas stream to be unstratified or minimally stratified, you may be allowed to sample at fewer points or at different points than would otherwise be required.
8.1.3.1 Test Procedure. To test for stratification, use a probe of appropriate length to measure the total vapor phase Hg concentration at twelve traverse points located according to Table 1-1 or Table 1-2 of Method 1 in appendix A-1 to this part. Alternatively, for a sampling location where stratification is expected (e.g., after a wet scrubber or at a point where dissimilar gas streams are combined together), if a 12-point Hg stratification test has been previously performed at that location and the results of the test showed the location to be minimally stratified or unstratified according to the criteria in section 8.1.3.2, you may perform an abbreviated 3-point or 6-point Hg stratification test at the points specified in
8.1.3.2 Acceptance Criteria and Sampling Point Location.
8.1.3.2.1 If the Hg concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than: (a) ±5 percent of the mean concentration; or (b) ±0.2 μg/m
8.1.3.2.2 If the 5 percent or 0.2 μg/m
8.1.3.2.3 If the gas stream is found to be stratified because the 10 percent or 0.5 μg/m
8.1.3.3 Temporal Variations. Temporal variations in the source Hg concentration during a stratification test may complicate the determination of stratification. If temporal variations are a concern, you may use the following procedure to normalize the stratification test data. A second Hg measurement system, i.e., either an installed Hg CEMS or another Method 30A system, is required to perform this procedure. Position the sampling probe of the second Hg measurement system at a fixed point in the stack or duct, at least one meter from the stack or duct wall. Then, each time that the Hg concentration is measured at one of the stratification test points, make a concurrent measurement of Hg concentration at the fixed point. Normalize the Hg concentration measured at each traverse point, by multiplying it by the ratio of C
8.1.3.4 Stratification Testing Exemption. Stratification testing need not be performed at a test location where it would otherwise be required to justify using fewer sample points or different sample points, if the owner or operator documents that the Hg concentration in the stack gas is expected to be 3 μg/m
8.1.3.5 Interim Alternative Stratification Test Procedures. In the time period between the effective date of this method and January 1, 2009, you may follow one of the following two procedures. Substitute a stratification test for sulfur dioxide (SO
8.2 Initial Measurement System Performance Tests. What initial performance criteria must my system meet before I begin sampling? Before measuring emissions, perform the following procedures:
(a) Interference Test;
(b) Calibration Gas Verification;
(c) Measurement System Preparation;
(d) 3-Point System Calibration Error Test;
(e) System Integrity Check;
(f) Measurement System Response Time Test; and
(g) Dynamic Spiking Test.
8.2.1 Interference Test (Optional). Your measurement system should be free of known interferences. It is recommended that you conduct this interference test of your measurement system prior to its initial use in the field to verify that the candidate test instrument is free from inherent biases or interferences resulting from common combustion emission constituents. If you have multiple measurement systems with components of the same make and model numbers, you need only perform this interference check on one system and you may also rely on an interference test conducted by the manufacturer on a system having components of the same make and model(s) of the system that you use. The interference test procedure is found in Section 8.6 of this method.
8.2.2 Calibration Gas Verification. How must I verify the concentrations of my calibration gases?
8.2.2.1 Cylinder Gas Standards. When cylinder gas standards are used for Hg
8.2.2.2 Other Calibration Standards. All other calibration standards for HgCl
8.2.2.3 Calibration Span. Select the calibration span (i.e., high-level gas concentration) so that the measured source emissions are 10 to 100 percent of the calibration span. This requirement is waived for applications in which the Hg concentrations are consistently below 1 μg/m
8.2.3 Measurement System Preparation. How do I prepare my measurement system for use? Assemble, prepare, and precondition the measurement system according to your standard operating procedure. Adjust the system to achieve the correct sampling rate or dilution ratio (as applicable). Then, conduct a 3-point system calibration error test using Hg
8.2.4 System Calibration Error Test. Conduct a 3-point system calibration error test before the first test run. Use Hg
8.2.5 System Integrity Check. Perform a two-point system integrity check before the first test run. Use the zero gas and either the mid- or high-level HgCl
8.2.6 Measurement System Response Time. The measurement system response time is used to determine the minimum sampling time for each sampling point and is equal to the time that is required for the measured Hg concentration to increase from the stable low-level calibration gas response to a value within 5 percent of the stable high-level calibration gas response during the system calibration error test in Section 8.2.4. Round off the measured system response time to the nearest minute.
8.2.7 Dynamic Spiking Test. You must perform dynamic spiking prior to the first test run to validate your test data. The purpose of this procedure is to demonstrate that the site-specific flue gas matrix does not adversely affect the accuracy of the measurement system. The specifications in Section 13.5 must be met to validate your data. If these specifications are not met for the pre-test dynamic spiking, you may not proceed with the test until satisfactory results are obtained. For the time period between the effective date of this method and January 1, 2009, the dynamic spiking requirement is waived.
8.2.7.1 How do I perform dynamic spiking? Dynamic spiking is a gas phase application of the method of standard additions, which involves injecting a known quantity of Hg into the measurement system upstream of all sample conditioning components, similar to system calibration mode, except the probe is not flooded and the resulting sample stream includes both effluent gas and the spike gas. You must follow a written procedure that details how the spike is added to the system, how the spike dilution factor (DF) is measured, and how the Hg concentration data are collected and processed.
8.2.7.2 Spiking Procedure Requirements.
8.2.7.2.1 Spiking Gas Requirements. The spike gas must also be a HgCl
8.2.7.2.2 Target Spiking Level. The target level for spiking must be 150 to 200 percent of the native Hg concentration; however, if the native Hg concentration is <1 μg/m
8.2.7.2.3 Spike Injections. You must inject spikes in such a manner that the spiking does not alter the total volumetric sample system flow rate and dilution ratio (if applicable). You must collect at least 3 data points, and the relative standard deviation (RSD) specification in Section 13.5 must be met. Each data point represents a single spike injection, and pre- and post-injection measurements of the native Hg concentration (or diluted native concentration, as applicable) are required for each spike injection.
8.2.7.2.4 Spike Dilution Factor (DF). For each spike injection, DF, the dilution factor must be determined. DF is the ratio of the total volumetric flow rate of gas through the measurement system to the spike gas flow rate. This factor must be ≥5. The spiking mass balance calculation is directly dependent on the accuracy of the DF determination. As a result, high accuracy total volumetric flow rate and spike gas flowrate measurements are required. These flow rates may be determined by direct or indirect measurement. Calibrated flow meters, venturies, orifices or tracer gas measurements are examples of potential flow measurement techniques.
8.2.7.2.5 Concentrations. The measurement system must record total vapor phase Hg concentrations continuously during the dynamic spiking procedure. It is possible that dynamic spiking at a level close to 200 percent of the native Hg concentration may cause the measured Hg concentration to exceed the calibration span value. Avoid this by choosing a lower spiking level or by recalibration at a higher span. The measurements shall not exceed 120 percent of the calibration span. The “baseline” measurements made between spikes may represent the native Hg concentration (if spike gas flow is stopped between injections) or the native Hg concentration diluted by blank or carrier gas flowing at the same rate as the spike gas (if gas flow cannot be stopped between injections). Each baseline measurement must include at least 4 readings or 1 minute (whichever is greater) of stable responses. Use Equation 30A-10 or 30A-11 in Section 12.10 (as applicable) to convert baseline measurements to native concentration.
8.2.7.2.6 Recovery. Calculate spike recoveries using Equation 30A-7 in Section 12.7. Mass recoveries may be calculated from stable responses based on injected mass flows or from integrated response peaks based on total mass injected. Calculate the mean and RSD for the three (or more) spike injections and compare to the specifications in Section 13.5.
8.2.7.2.7 Error Adjustment Option. You may adjust the measurement data collected during dynamic spiking for the system calibration error using Equation 30A-3 in Section 12. To do this, perform the initial system integrity check prior to the dynamic spiking test, and perform another system integrity check following the dynamic spiking test and before the first test run. If you choose this option, you must apply Equation 30A-3 to both the spiked sample concentration measurement (C
8.2.7.3 Example Spiking Procedure Using a Hot Vapor Calibration Source Generator.
(a) Introduce the spike gas into the probe using a hot vapor calibration source generator and a solution of HgCl
(b) If applicable, monitor the measurement system to make sure the total sampling system flow rate and the sample dilution ratio do not change during this procedure. Record all data on a data sheet similar to Table 30A-5 in Section 17.0. If the Hg measurement system design makes it impractical to measure the total volumetric flow rate through the system, use a spike gas that includes a tracer for measuring the dilution factor, DF (see Equation 30A-9 in Section 12.9). Allow the measurements to stabilize between each spike injection, average the pre- and post-injection baseline measurements, and calculate the native concentration. If this measurement shifts by more than 5 percent during any injection, it may be necessary to discard that data point and repeat the injection to achieve the required RSD among the injections. If the spikes persistently show poor repeatability, or if the recoveries are not within the range specified in Section 13.5, take corrective action.
8.2.8 Run Validation. How do I confirm that each run I conduct is valid?
8.2.8.1 System Integrity Checks.
(a) Before and after each test run, perform a two-point system integrity check using the same procedure as the initial system integrity check described in Section 8.2.5. You may use data from that initial system integrity
(b) As a time-saving alternative, you may, at the risk of invalidating multiple test runs, skip one or more integrity checks during a test day. Provided there have been no auto-calibrations or other instrument alterations, a single integrity check may suffice as a post-run check to validate (or invalidate) as many consecutive test runs as can be completed during a single test day. All subsequent test days must begin with a pre-run system integrity check subject to the same performance criteria and corrective action requirements as a post-run system integrity check.
(c) Each system integrity check must meet the criteria for system integrity checks in Section 13.2. If a post-run system integrity check is failed, all test runs since the last passed system integrity check are invalid. If a post-run or a pre-run system integrity check is failed, you must take corrective action and pass another 3-point Hg
8.2.8.2 Drift Check. Using the data from the successful pre- and post-run system integrity checks, calculate the zero and upscale drift, using Equation 30A-2 in Section 12.3. Exceeding the Section 13.3 specification does not invalidate the run, but corrective action must be taken and a new 3-point Hg
8.3 Dilution-Type Systems—Special Considerations. When a dilution-type measurement system is used, there are three important considerations that must be taken into account to ensure the quality of the emissions data. First, the critical orifice size and dilution ratio must be selected properly so that the sample dew point will be below the sample line and analyzer temperatures. Second, a high-quality, accurate dilution controller must be used to maintain the correct dilution ratio during sampling. The dilution controller should be capable of monitoring the dilution air pressure, orifice upstream pressure, eductor vacuum, and sample flow rates. Third, differences between the molecular weight of calibration gas mixtures, dilution air, and the stack gas molecular weight must be considered because these can affect the dilution ratio and introduce measurement bias.
8.4 Sampling.
(a) Position the probe at the first sampling point. Allow the system to flush and equilibrate for at least two times the measurement system response time before recording any data. Then, traverse and record measurements at all required sampling points. Sample at each traverse point for an equal length of time, maintaining the appropriate sample flow rate or dilution ratio (as applicable). For all Hg instrumental method systems, the minimum sampling time at each sampling point must be at least two times the system response time, but not less than 10 minutes. For concentrating systems, the minimum sampling time must also include at least 4 concentration measurement cycles.
(b) After recording data for the appropriate period of time at the first traverse point, you may move the sample probe to the next point and continue recording, omitting the requirement to allow the system to equilibrate for two times the system response time before recording data at the subsequent traverse points. You must, however, sample at this and all subsequent traverse points for the required minimum amount of time specified in this section. If you must remove the probe from the stack for any reason, you must again allow the sampling system to equilibrate for at least two times the system response time prior to resuming data recording.
(c) If at any point the measured Hg concentration exceeds the calibration span value, you must at a minimum identify and report this as a deviation from the method. Depending on the data quality objectives of the test, this event may require corrective action before proceeding. If the average Hg concentration for any run exceeds the calibration span value, the run is invalidated.
8.5 Moisture Correction. If the moisture basis (wet or dry) of the measurements made with this method is different from the moisture basis of either: (1) The applicable emission limit; or (2) a Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system being evaluated for relative accuracy, you must determine the moisture content of the flue gas and correct the measured gas concentrations to a dry basis using Method 4 in appendix A-3 of this part or other appropriate methods, subject to the approval of the Administrator.
8.6 Optional Interference Test Procedure.
(a) Select an appropriate calibration span that reflects the source(s) to be tested and perform the interference check at 40 percent of the lowest calibration span value anticipated, e.g., 10 μg/m
(b) Introduce the interference test gases listed in Table 30A-3 in Section 17.0 into the measurement system separately or as a mixture. The interference test gases HCl and NO must be introduced as a mixture. The interference test gases must be introduced into the sampling system at the probe such that the interference gas mixtures pass through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other components as would be configured for normal sampling.
(c) The interference test must be performed using HgCl
(d) The duration of each test should be for a sufficient period of time to ensure the Hg measurement system surfaces are conditioned and a stable output is obtained. Measure the Hg response of the analyzer to these gases in μg/m3. Record the responses and determine the overall interference response using Table 30A-4 in Section 17.0 and the equations presented in Section 12.11. The specification in Section 13.4 must be met.
(e) A copy of these data, including the date completed and a signed certification, must be included with each test report. The intent of this test is that the interference test results are intended to be valid for the life of the system. As a result, the Hg measurement system should be operated and tested in a configuration consistent with the configuration that will be used for field applications. However, if the system used for field testing is not consistent with the system that was interference-tested, the interference test must be repeated before it is used for any field applications. Examples of such conditions include, but are not limited to: major changes in dilution ratio (for dilution based systems), changes in catalyst materials, changes in filtering device design or materials, changes in probe design or configuration, and changes in gas conditioning materials or approaches.
The table which follows is a summary of the mandatory, suggested, and alternative quality assurance and quality control measures and the associated frequency and acceptance criteria. All of the QC data, along with the run data, must be documented and included in the test report.
Your analyzer must be calibrated with Hg° standards. The initial 3-point system calibration error test described in Section 8.2.4 is required before you start the test. Also, prior to and following test runs, the two-point system integrity checks described in Sections 8.2.5 and 8.2.8 are required. On and after January 1, 2009, the pre-test dynamic spiking procedure described in section 8.2.7 is also required to verify that the accuracy of the measurement system is suitable and not adversely affected by the flue gas matrix.
Because sample collection and analysis are performed together (see Section 8), additional discussion of the analytical procedure is not necessary.
You must follow the procedures for calculations and data analysis listed in this section.
12.1 Nomenclature. The terms used in the equations are defined as follows:
12.2 System Calibration Error. Use Equation 30A-1 to calculate the system calibration error. Equation 30A-1 applies to: 3-point system calibration error tests performed with Hg° standards; and pre- and post-run two-point system integrity checks performed with HgCl
12.3 Drift Assessment. Use Equation 30A-2 to separately calculate the zero and upscale drift for each test run.
12.3 Effluent Hg Concentration. For each test run, calculate C
12.4 Moisture Correction. Use Equation 30A-4a if your measurements need to be corrected to a dry basis.
Use Equation 30A-4b if your measurements need to be corrected to a wet basis.
12.5 Dynamic Spike Gas Concentrations. Use Equation 30A-5 to determine the spike gas concentration needed to produce a spiked sample with a certain “target” Hg concentration.
12.6 Spiked Sample Concentration. Use Equation 30A-6 to determine the expected or theoretical Hg concentration of a spiked sample.
12.7 Spike Recovery. Use Equation 30A-7 to calculate the percentage recovery of each spike.
12.8 Relative Standard Deviation. Use Equation 30A-8 to calculate the relative standard deviation of the individual percentage spike recovery values from the mean.
12.9 Spike Dilution Factor. Use Equation 30A-9 to calculate the spike dilution factor, using either direct flow measurements or tracer gas measurements.
12.10 Native Concentration. For spiking procedures that inject blank or carrier gases (at the spiking flow rate, Q
For spiking procedures that halt all injections between spikes, the native concentration equals the average baseline concentration (see Equation 30A-11).
12.11 Overall Interference Response. Use equation 30A-12 to calculate the overall interference response.
Where, for each interference gas (or mixture):
13.1 System Calibration Error Test. This specification applies to the 3-point system calibration error tests using Hg
13.2 System Integrity Checks. This specification applies to all pre- and post-run 2-point system integrity checks using HgCl
13.3 Drift. For each run, the low-level and upscale drift must be less than or equal to 3.0 percent of the calibration span. The drift is also acceptable if the pre- and post-run system integrity check responses do not differ by more than 0.3 μg/m
13.4 Interference Test. Summarize the results following the format contained in Table 30A-4. For each interference gas (or mixture), calculate the mean difference between the measurement system responses with and without the interference test gas(es). The overall interference response for the analyzer that was used for the test (calculated according to Equation 30A-12), must not be greater than 3.0 percent of the calibration span used for the test (see Section 8.6). The results of the interference test are also acceptable if the sum of the absolute average differences for all interference gases (i.e., Σ C
13.5 Dynamic Spiking Test. For the pre-test dynamic spiking, the mean value of the percentage spike recovery must be 100 ±10 percent. In addition, the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the individual percentage spike recovery values from the mean must be ≤5.0 percent. Alternatively, if the mean percentage recovery is not met, the results are acceptable if the absolute difference between the theoretical spiked sample concentration (see Section 12.6) and the actual average value of the spiked sample concentration is ≤0.5 μg/m
1. EPA Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Elemental Mercury Gas Generators, expected publication date December 2008, see
2. EPA Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Oxidized Mercury Gas Generators, expected publication date December 2008, see
3. EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, expected revision publication date December 2008, see
Method 30B is a procedure for measuring total vapor phase mercury (Hg) emissions from coal-fired combustion sources using sorbent trap sampling and an extractive or thermal analytical technique. This method is only intended for use only under relatively low particulate conditions (e.g., sampling after all pollution control devices). Quality assurance and quality control requirements are included to assure that you, the tester, collect data of known and acceptable quality for each testing program. This method does not completely describe all equipment, supplies, and sampling and analytical procedures you will need, but instead refers to other test methods for some of the details. Therefore, to obtain reliable results, you should also have a thorough knowledge of these additional methods which are found in Appendices A-1 and A-3 to this part:
(a) Method 1—Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources.
(b) Method 4—Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases.
(c) Method 5—Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources
1.1 Analytes. What does this method determine? This method is designed to measure the mass concentration of total vapor phase Hg in flue gas, including elemental Hg (Hg
1.2 Applicability. When is this method required? Method 30B is a reference method for relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) of vapor phase Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems installed at coal-fired boilers and is also appropriate for Hg emissions testing at such boilers. It is intended for use only under relatively low particulate conditions (i.e., sampling after all pollution control devices); in cases where significant amounts of particle-bound Hg may be present, an isokinetic sampling method for Hg should be used. Method 30B may also be specified by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), emissions trading programs, State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and operating permits that require measurement of Hg concentrations in stationary source emissions, either to determine compliance with an applicable emission standard or limit, or to conduct RATAs of Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems.
1.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQO). How good must my collected data be? Method 30B has been designed to provide data of high and known quality for Hg emissions testing and for RATA testing of Hg monitoring systems, including CEMS and sorbent trap monitors. In these and other applications, the principal objective is to ensure the accuracy of the data at the actual emissions levels and in the actual emissions matrix encountered. To meet this objective, NIST-traceable calibration standards must be used and method performance tests are required.
Known volumes of flue gas are extracted from a stack or duct through paired, in-stack sorbent media traps at an appropriate flow rate. Collection of mercury on the sorbent media in the stack mitigates potential loss of mercury during transport through a probe/sample line. For each test run, paired train sampling is required to determine measurement precision and verify acceptability of the measured emissions data. A field recovery test which assesses recovery of an elemental Hg spike to determine measurement bias is also used to verify data acceptability. The sorbent traps are recovered from the sampling system, prepared for analysis as needed, and analyzed by any suitable determinative technique that can meet the performance criteria.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Interferences may result from the sorbent trap material used as well as from the measurement environment itself. The iodine present on some sorbent traps may impart a negative measurement bias. High levels of sulfur trioxide (SO
What safety measures should I consider when using this method? This method may require you to work with hazardous materials and in hazardous conditions. You are encouraged to establish safety procedures before using the method. Among other precautions, you should become familiar with the safety recommendations in the gas analyzer user's manual. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations concerning use of compressed gas cylinders and noxious gases may apply.
5.1 Site Hazards. Prior to applying these procedures/specifications in the field, the potential hazards at the test site should be considered; advance coordination with the site is critical to understand the conditions and applicable safety policies. At a minimum, portions of the sampling system will be hot, requiring appropriate gloves, long sleeves, and caution in handling this equipment.
5.2 Laboratory Safety. Policies should be in place to minimize risk of chemical exposure and to properly handle waste disposal in the laboratory. Personnel shall wear appropriate laboratory attire according to a Chemical Hygiene Plan established by the laboratory.
5.3 Reagent Toxicity/Carcinogenicity. The toxicity and carcinogenicity of any reagents used must be considered. Depending upon the sampling and analytical technologies selected, this measurement may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment and this method does not address all of the safety problems associated with implementing this approach. It is the responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performance. Any chemical should be regarded as a potential health hazard and exposure to these compounds should be minimized. Chemists should refer to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each chemical used.
5.4 Waste Disposal. Any waste generated by this procedure must be disposed of
The following list is presented as an example of key equipment and supplies likely required to measure vapor-phase Hg using a sorbent trap sampling system. It is recognized that additional equipment and supplies may be needed. Collection of paired samples is required.
6.1 Sorbent Trap Sampling System. A typical sorbent trap sampling system is shown in Figure 30B-1 in Section 17.0. The sorbent trap sampling system shall include the following components:
6.1.1 Sorbent Traps. The sorbent media used to collect Hg must be configured in a trap with at least two distinct segments or sections, connected in series, that are amenable to separate analyses. Section 1 is designated for primary capture of gaseous Hg. Section 2 is designated as a backup section for determination of vapor phase Hg breakthrough. Each sorbent trap must be inscribed or otherwise permanently marked with a unique identification number, for tracking purposes. The sorbent media may be any collection material (e.g., carbon, chemically-treated filter, etc.) capable of quantitatively capturing and recovering for subsequent analysis, all gaseous forms of Hg in the emissions from the intended application. Selection of the sorbent media shall be based on the material's ability to achieve the performance criteria contained in this method as well as the sorbent's vapor phase Hg capture efficiency for the emissions matrix and the expected sampling duration at the test site. The sorbent media must be obtained from a source that can demonstrate their quality assurance and quality control (see Section 7.2). The paired sorbent traps are supported on a probe (or probes) and inserted directly into the flue gas stream.
6.1.2 Sampling Probe Assembly. Each probe assembly shall have a leak-free attachment to the sorbent trap(s). Each sorbent trap must be mounted at the entrance of or within the probe such that the gas sampled enters the trap directly. Each probe/sorbent trap assembly must be heated to a temperature sufficient to prevent liquid condensation in the sorbent trap(s). Auxiliary heating is required only where the stack temperature is too low to prevent condensation. Use a calibrated thermocouple to monitor the stack temperature. A single probe capable of operating the paired sorbent traps may be used. Alternatively, individual probe/sorbent trap assemblies may be used, provided that the individual sorbent traps are co-located to ensure representative Hg monitoring.
6.1.3 Moisture Removal Device. A moisture removal device or system shall be used to remove water vapor from the gas stream prior to entering dry gas flow metering devices.
6.1.4 Vacuum Pump. Use a leak-tight, vacuum pump capable of operating within the system's flow range.
6.1.5 Gas Flow Meter. A gas flow meter (such as a dry gas meter, thermal mass flow meter, or other suitable measurement device) shall be used to determine the total sample volume on a dry basis, in units of standard cubic meters. The meter must be sufficiently accurate to measure the total sample volume to within 2 percent and must be calibrated at selected flow rates across the range of sample flow rates at which the sampling train will be operated. The gas flow meter shall be equipped with any necessary auxiliary measurement devices (e.g., temperature sensors, pressure measurement devices) needed to correct the sample volume to standard conditions.
6.1.6 Sample Flow Rate Meter and Controller. Use a flow rate indicator and controller for maintaining necessary sampling flow rates.
6.1.7 Temperature Sensor. Same as Section 6.1.1.7 of Method 5 in Appendix A-3 to this part.
6.1.8 Barometer. Same as Section 6.1.2 of Method 5 in Appendix A-3 to this part.
6.1.9 Data Logger (optional). Device for recording associated and necessary ancillary information (e.g., temperatures, pressures, flow, time, etc.).
6.2 Gaseous Hg
6.3 Sample Analysis Equipment. Any analytical system capable of quantitatively recovering and quantifying total Hg from the sorbent media selected is acceptable provided that the analysis can meet the performance criteria described in this method. Example recovery techniques include acid leaching, digestion, and thermal desorption/direct combustion. Example analytical techniques include, but are not limited to, ultraviolet atomic fluorescence (UV AF), ultraviolet atomic absorption (UV AA) with and without gold trapping, and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis.
6.3 Moisture Measurement System. If correction of the measured Hg emissions for moisture is required (see Section 8.3.3.7), either Method 4 in Appendix A-3 to this part or other moisture measurement methods approved by the Administrator will be needed to measure stack gas moisture content.
7.1 Reagents and Standards. Only NIST-certified or NIST-traceable calibration standards, standard reference materials, and reagents shall be used for the tests and procedures required by this method.
7.2 Sorbent Trap Media. The sorbent trap media shall be prepared such that the material used for testing is of known and acceptable quality. Sorbent supplier quality assurance/quality control measures to ensure appropriate and consistent performance such as sorptive capacity, uniformity of preparation treatments, and background levels shall be considered.
This section presents the sample collection and handling procedures along with the pretest and on-site performance tests required by this method. Since you may choose different options to comply with certain performance criteria, each test report must identify the specific options selected and document the results with respect to the performance criteria of this method.
8.1 Sample Point Selection. What sampling site and sampling points do I select? Same as Section 8.1 of Method 30A of this appendix.
8.2 Measurement System Performance Tests. What performance criteria must my measurement system meet? The following laboratory and field procedures and associated criteria of this section are designed to ensure (1) selection of a sorbent and analytical technique combination capable of quantitative collection and analysis of gaseous Hg, (2) collection of an adequate amount of Hg on each sorbent trap during field tests, and (3) adequate performance of the method for each test program: The primary objectives of these performance tests are to characterize and verify the performance of your intended analytical system and associated sampling and analytical procedures, and to define the minimum amount of Hg (as the sample collection target) that can be quantified reliably.
(a) Analytical Matrix Interference Test;
(b) Determination of Minimum Sample Mass;
(c) Hg
(d) Determination of Nominal Sample Volume;
(e) Field Recovery Test.
8.2.1 Analytical Matrix Interference Test and Minimum Sample Dilution.
(a) The analytical matrix interference test is a laboratory procedure. It is required only if you elect to use a liquid digestion analytical approach and needs to be performed only once for each sorbent material used. The purpose of the test is to verify the presence or absence of known and potential analytical matrix interferences, including the potential negative bias associated with iodine common to many sorbent trap materials. The analytical matrix interference test determines the minimum dilution (if any) necessary to mitigate matrix effects on the sample digestate solutions.
(b) The result of the analytical matrix interference test, i.e., the minimum sample dilution required (if any) for all sample
8.2.1.1 Analytical Matrix Interference Test Procedures. Digest and prepare for analysis a representative mass of sorbent material (unsampled) according to your intended laboratory techniques for field samples. Analyze the digestate according to your intended analytical conditions at the least diluted level you intend to use for sample analysis (e.g., undiluted, 1 in 10 dilution, etc.). Determine the Hg concentration of the undiluted digestate solution. Prepare a series of solutions with a fixed final volume containing graduated aliquots of the sample digestate and, a fixed aliquot of a calibration standard (with the balance being Hg-free reagent or H
8.2.1.2 Analytical Matrix Interference Test Acceptance Criteria. Compare the measured concentration of each solution containing digestate to the measured concentration of the digestate-free solution. The lowest dilution ratio of any solution having a Hg concentration within ±5 percent of the digestate-free solution is the minimum dilution ratio required for analysis of all samples. If you desire to measure the digestate without dilution, the ± 5 percent criterion must be met at a dilution ratio of at least 9:10 (i.e., ≥90% digestate).
8.2.1.3 Example Analytical Matrix Interference Test. An example analytical matrix interference test is presented below. Additional information on the conduct of the analytical matrix interference test will be posted at
8.2.2 Determination of Minimum Sample Mass. The minimum mass of Hg that must be collected per sample must be determined. This information is necessary in order to effectively perform the Hg
8.2.2.1 Determination of Minimum Calibration Concentration or Mass. Based on your instrument's sensitivity and linearity, determine the calibration concentrations or masses that make up a representative low level calibration range. Verify that you are able to meet the multipoint calibration performance criteria in section 11.0 of this method. Select a calibration concentration or mass that is no less than 2 times the lowest concentration or mass in your calibration curve. The lowest point in your calibration curve must be at least 5, and preferably 10, times the Method Detection Limit (MDL), which is the minimum amount of the analyte that can be detected and reported. The MDL must be determined at least once for the analytical system using an MDL study such as that found in section 17.0 of the proposed amendments to EPA Method 301 (69 FR 76642, 12/22/2004).
8.2.2.2 Determination of Minimum Sample Mass. Based on your minimum calibration concentration or mass and other sample treatments including, but not limited to, final digestate volume and minimum sample dilution, determine the minimum sample mass. Consideration should also be given to the Hg levels expected to be measured in Section 2 of the sorbent traps and to the breakthrough criteria presented in Table 9-1.
8.2.2.2.1 Example Determination of Minimum Sample Mass for Thermal Desorption Analysis. A thermal analysis system has been calibrated at five Hg mass levels: 10 ng, 20 ng, 50 ng, 100 ng, 200 ng, and shown to meet the calibration performance criteria in this method. Based on 2 times the lowest point in the calibration curve, 20 ng is selected as the minimum calibration mass. Because the entire sample is analyzed and there are no dilutions involved, the minimum sample mass is also 20 ng.
8.2.2.2.2 Example Determination of Minimum Sample Mass for Acid Leachate/Digestate Analysis. A cold vapor analysis system has been calibrated at four Hg concentration levels: 2 ng/L, 5 ng, 10 ng/L, 20 ng/L, and shown to meet the calibration performance criteria in this method. Based on 2 times the lowest point in the calibration curve, 4 ng/L was selected as the minimum calibration concentration. The final sample volume of a digestate is nominally 50 ml (0.05 L) and the minimum dilution necessary was determined to be 1:100 by the Analytical Matrix Interference Test of Section 8.2.1. The following calculation would be used to determine the minimum sample mass.
8.2.3 Hg
8.2.3.1 Hg
8.2.3.1.1 Hg
8.2.3.1.2 HgCl
8.2.4 Determination of Target Sample Volume. The target sample volume is an estimate of the sample volume needed to ensure that valid emissions data are collected (i.e., that sample mass Hg loadings fall within the analytical calibration curve and are within the upper and lower bounds set by the analytical bias tests). The target sample volume and minimum sample mass can also be determined by performing a diagnostic test run prior to initiation of formal testing.
8.2.5 Determination of Sample Run Time. Sample run time will be a function of minimum sample mass (see Section 8.2.2), target sample volume and nominal equipment sample flow rate. The minimum sample run time for conducting relative accuracy test audits of Hg monitoring systems is 30 minutes and for emissions testing to characterize an emission source is 1 hour. The target sample run time can be calculated using the following example.
8.2.6 Field Recovery Test. The field recovery test provides a test program-specific verification of the performance of the combined sampling and analytical approach. Three sets of paired samples, one of each pair which is spiked with a known level of Hg, are collected and analyzed and the average recovery of the spiked samples is used to verify performance of the measurement system under field conditions during that test program. The conduct of this test requires an estimate or confirmation of the stack Hg concentrations at the time of testing.
8.2.6.1 Calculation of Pre-sampling Spiking Level. Determine the sorbent trap spiking level for the field recovery test using estimates of the stack Hg concentration, the target sample flow rate, and the planned sample duration. First, determine the Hg mass expected to be collected in section 1 of the sorbent trap. The pre-sampling spike must be within 50 to 150 percent of this expected mass.
A Hg spike of 60 to 180 ng (50-150% of 120 ng) would be appropriate.
8.2.6.2 Procedures. Set up two identical sampling trains. One of the sampling trains shall be designated the spiked train and the other the unspiked train. Spike Hg
8.3 Sampling. This section describes the procedures and criteria for collecting the field samples for analysis. As noted in Section 8.2.6, the field recovery test samples are also collected using these procedures.
8.3.1 Pre-test leak check. Perform a leak check of the sampling system with the sorbent traps in place. For each of the paired sampling trains, draw a vacuum in the train, and adjust the vacuum to ~15″ Hg; and, using the gas flow meter, determine leak rate. The leak rate for an individual train must not exceed 4 percent of the target sampling rate. Once the leak check passes this criterion, carefully release the vacuum in the sample train, then seal the sorbent trap inlet until the probe is ready for insertion into the stack or duct.
8.3.2 Determination of Flue Gas Characteristics. Determine or measure the flue gas measurement environment characteristics (gas temperature, static pressure, gas velocity, stack moisture, etc.) in order to determine ancillary requirements such as probe heating requirements (if any), initial sampling rate, moisture management, etc.
8.3.3 Sample Collection
8.3.3.1 Remove the plug from the end of each sorbent trap and store each plug in a clean sorbent trap storage container. Remove the stack or duct port cap and insert the probe(s). Secure the probe(s) and ensure that no leakage occurs between the duct and environment.
8.3.3.2 Record initial data including the sorbent trap ID, date, and the run start time.
8.3.3.3 Record the initial gas flow meter reading, stack temperature, meter temperatures (if needed), and any other appropriate information, before beginning sampling. Begin sampling and target a sampling flow rate similar to that for the field recovery test. Then, at regular intervals (≤5 minutes) during the sampling period, record the date and time, the sample flow rate, the gas meter reading, the stack temperature, the flow meter temperatures (if using a dry gas meter), temperatures of heated equipment such as the vacuum lines and the probes (if heated), and the sampling system vacuum readings. Adjust the sampling flow rate as necessary to maintain the initial sample flow
8.3.3.4 Data Recording. Obtain and record any essential operating data for the facility during the test period, e.g., the barometric pressure must be obtained for correcting sample volume to standard conditions when using a dry gas meter. At the end of the data collection period, record the final gas flow meter reading and the final values of all other essential parameters.
8.3.3.5 Post-Test Leak Check. When sampling is completed, turn off the sample pump, remove the probe(s) with sorbent traps from the port, and carefully seal the end of each sorbent trap. Perform another leak check of each sampling train with the sorbent trap in place, at the maximum vacuum reached during the sampling period. Record the leakage rates and vacuums. The leakage rate for each train must not exceed 4 percent of the average sampling rate for the data collection period. Following each leak check, carefully release the vacuum in the sample train.
8.3.3.6 Sample Recovery. Recover each sampled sorbent trap by removing it from the probe and sealing both ends. Wipe any deposited material from the outside of the sorbent trap. Place the sorbent trap into an appropriate sample storage container and store/preserve in appropriate manner (see Section 8.3.3.8).
8.3.3.7 Stack Gas Moisture Determination. If the moisture basis of the measurements made with this method (dry) is different from the moisture basis of either: (1) the applicable emission limit; or (2) a Hg CEMS being evaluated for relative accuracy, you must determine the moisture content of the flue gas and correct for moisture using Method 4 in appendix A-3 to this part. If correction of the measured Hg concentrations for moisture is required, at least one Method 4 moisture determination shall be made during each test run.
8.3.3.8 Sample Handling, Preservation, Storage, and Transport. While the performance criteria of this approach provide for verification of appropriate sample handling, it is still important that the user consider, determine, and plan for suitable sample preservation, storage, transport, and holding times for these measurements. Therefore, procedures in ASTM WK223 “Guide for Packaging and Shipping Environmental Samples for Laboratory Analysis” shall be followed for all samples, where appropriate. To avoid Hg contamination of the samples, special attention should be paid to cleanliness during transport, field handling, sampling, recovery, and laboratory analysis, as well as during preparation of the sorbent cartridges. Collection and analysis of blank samples (e.g., reagent, sorbent, field, etc.,) is useful in verifying the absence or source of contaminant Hg.
8.3.3.9 Sample Custody. Proper procedures and documentation for sample chain of custody are critical to ensuring data integrity. The chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures” shall be followed for all samples (including field samples and blanks).
Table 9-1 summarizes the QA/QC performance criteria that are used to validate the Hg emissions data from Method 30B sorbent trap measurement systems.
10.1 Only NIST-certified and NIST-traceable calibration standards (i.e., calibration gases, solutions, etc.) shall be used for the spiking and analytical procedures in this method.
10.2 Gas Flow Meter Calibration.
10.2.1 Preliminaries. The manufacturer or equipment supplier of the gas flow meter should perform all necessary set-up, testing, programming, etc., and should provide the end user with any necessary instructions, to ensure that the meter will give an accurate readout of dry gas volume in standard cubic meters for this method.
10.2.2 Initial Calibration. Prior to its initial use, a calibration of the gas flow meter shall be performed. The initial calibration may be done by the manufacturer, by the equipment supplier, or by the end user. If the flow meter is volumetric in nature (
10.2.2.1 Initial Calibration Procedures. Determine an average calibration factor (Y) for the gas flow meter by calibrating it at three sample flow rate settings covering the range of sample flow rates at which the sampling system will be operated. You may either follow the procedures in section 10.3.1 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part or in section 16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part. If a dry gas meter is being calibrated, use at least five revolutions of the meter at each flow rate.
10.2.2.2 Alternative Initial Calibration Procedures. Alternatively, you may perform the initial calibration of the gas flow meter using a reference gas flow meter (RGFM). The RGFM may be: (1) A wet test meter calibrated according to section 10.3.1 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part; (2) a gas flow metering device calibrated at multiple flow rates using the procedures in section 16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part; or (3) a NIST-traceable calibration device capable of measuring volumetric flow to an accuracy of 1 percent. To calibrate the gas flow meter using the RGFM, proceed as follows: While the Method 30B sampling system is sampling the actual stack gas or a compressed gas mixture that simulates the stack gas composition (as applicable), connect the RGFM to the discharge of the system. Care should be taken to minimize the dead volume between the gas flow meter being tested and the RGFM. Concurrently measure dry stack gas volume with the RGFM and the flow meter being calibrated for at least 10 minutes at each of three flow rates covering the typical range of operation of the sampling system. For each set of concurrent measurements, record the total sample volume, in units of dry standard cubic meters (dscm), measured by the RGFM and the gas flow meter being tested.
10.2.2.3 Initial Calibration Factor. Calculate an individual calibration factor Y
10.2.2.4 Pretest On-Site Calibration Check (Optional). For a mass flow meter, if the most recent 3-point calibration of the flow meter was performed using a compressed gas mixture, you may want to conduct the following on-site calibration check prior to testing, to ensure that the flow meter will accurately measure the volume of the stack gas: While sampling stack gas, check the calibration of the flow meter at one intermediate flow rate setting representative of normal operation of the sampling system. If the pretest calibration check shows that the value of Y
10.2.2.5 Post-Test Calibration Check. Check the calibration of the gas flow meter following each field test at one intermediate flow rate setting, either at, or in close proximity to, the average sample flow rate during the field test. For dry gas meters, ensure at least three revolutions of the meter during the calibration check. For mass flow meters, this check must be performed before leaving the test site, while sampling stack gas. If a one-point calibration check shows that the value of Y
10.3 Thermocouples and Other Temperature Sensors. Use the procedures and criteria in Section 10.3 of Method 2 in Appendix A-1 to this part to calibrate in-stack temperature sensors and thermocouples. Dial thermometers shall be calibrated against mercury-in-glass thermometers. Calibrations must be performed prior to initial use and before each field test thereafter. At each calibration point, the absolute temperature measured by the temperature sensor must agree to within ±1.5 percent of the temperature measured with the reference sensor, otherwise the sensor may not continue to be used.
10.4 Barometer. Calibrate against a mercury barometer as per Section 10.6 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part. Calibration must be performed prior to initial use and before each test program, and the absolute pressure measured by the barometer must agree to within +10 mm Hg of the pressure measured by the mercury barometer, otherwise the barometer may not continue to be used.
10.5 Other Sensors and Gauges. Calibrate all other sensors and gauges according to the procedures specified by the instrument manufacturer(s).
10.6 Analytical System Calibration. See Section 11.1 of this method.
The analysis of Hg in the field and quality control samples may be conducted using any instrument or technology capable of quantifying total Hg from the sorbent media and meeting the performance criteria in this method. Because multiple analytical approaches, equipment and techniques are appropriate for the analysis of sorbent traps, it is not possible to provide detailed, technique-specific analytical procedures. As they become available, detailed procedures for a variety of candidate analytical approaches will be posted at
11.1 Analytical System Calibration. Perform a multipoint calibration of the analyzer at three or more upscale points over the desired quantitative range (multiple calibration ranges shall be calibrated, if necessary). The field samples analyzed must fall within a calibrated, quantitative range and meet the performance criteria specified below. For samples suitable for aliquotting, a series of dilutions may be needed to ensure that the samples fall within a calibrated range. However, for sorbent media samples consumed during analysis (e.g., when using thermal desorption techniques), extra care must be taken to ensure that the analytical system is appropriately calibrated prior to sample analysis. The calibration curve range(s) should be determined such that the levels of Hg mass expected to be collected and measured will fall within the calibrated range. The calibration curve may be generated by directly introducing standard solutions into the analyzer or by spiking the standards onto the sorbent media and then introducing into the analyzer after preparing the sorbent/standard according to the particular analytical technique. For each calibration curve, the value of the square of the linear correlation coefficient, i.e., r
11.2 Sample Preparation. Carefully separate the sections of each sorbent trap. Combine for analysis all materials associated with each section; any supporting substrate that the sample gas passes through prior to entering a media section (e.g., glass wool separators, acid gas traps, etc.) must be analyzed with that segment.
11.3 Field Sample Analyses. Analyze the sorbent trap samples following the same procedures that were used for conducting the Hg
11.4 Analysis of Continuing Calibration Verification Standard (CCVS). After no more than 10 samples and at the end of each set of analyses, a continuing calibration verification standard must be analyzed. The measured value of the continuing calibration standard must be within ±10 percent of the expected value.
11.5 Blanks. The analysis of blanks is optional. The analysis of blanks is useful to verify the absence of, or an acceptable level of, Hg contamination. Blank levels should be considered when quantifying low Hg levels and their potential contribution to meeting the sorbent trap section 2 breakthrough requirements; however, correcting sorbent trap results for blank levels is prohibited.
You must follow the procedures for calculation and data analysis listed in this section.
12.1 Nomenclature. The terms used in the equations are defined as follows:
12.2 Calculation of Spike Recovery (Analytical Bias Test). Calculate the percent recovery of Hg
12.3 Calculation of Breakthrough. Use Equation 30B-2 to calculate the percent breakthrough to the second section of the sorbent trap.
12.4 Calculation of Hg Concentration. Calculate the Hg concentration measured with sorbent trap “a”, using Equation 30B-3.
For sorbent trap “b”, replace “C
12.5 Moisture Correction. Use Equation 30B-4 if your measurements need to be corrected to a wet basis.
12.6 Calculation of Paired Trap Agreement. Calculate the relative deviation (RD) between the Hg concentrations measured with the paired sorbent traps using Equation 30B-5.
12.7 Calculation of Measured Spike Hg Concentration (Field Recovery Test). Calculate the measured spike concentration using Equation 30B-6.
Then calculate the spiked Hg recovery, R, using Equation 30B-7.
How do I validate my data? Measurement data are validated using initial, one-time laboratory tests coupled with test program-specific tests and procedures. The analytical matrix interference test and the Hg
1. EPA Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Elemental Mercury Gas Generators, expected publication date December 2008, see
2. EPA Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Oxidized Mercury Gas Generators, expected publication date December 2008, see
3. EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, expected revision publication date December 2008, see
8.6.2 RM. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart of the regulations, use Method 29, Method 30A, or Method 30B in appendix A to this part or American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D6784-02 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17) as the RM for Hg concentration. Do not include the filterable portion of the sample when making comparisons to the CEMS results. When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, conduct the RM test runs with paired or duplicate sampling systems. When Method 30A is used, paired sampling systems are not required. If the RM and CEMS measure on a different moisture basis, data derived with Method 4 in appendix A to this part shall also be obtained during the RA test.
8.6.4 Number and Length of RM and Tests. Conduct a minimum of nine RM test runs. When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, only test runs for which the paired RM trains meet the relative deviation criteria (RD) of this PS shall be used in the RA calculations. In addition, for Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02, use a minimum sample time of 2 hours and for Method 30A use a minimum sample time of 30 minutes.
More than nine sets of RM tests may be performed. If this option is chosen, paired RM test results may be excluded so long as the total number of paired RM test results used to determine the CEMS RA is greater than or equal to nine. However, all data must be reported including the excluded data.
8.6.5 Correlation of RM and CEMS Data. Correlate the CEMS and the RM test data as to the time and duration by first determining from the CEMS final output (the one used for reporting) the integrated average pollutant concentration for each RM test period. Consider system response time, if important, and confirm that the results are on a consistent moisture basis with the RM test. Then, compare each integrated CEMS value against the corresponding RM value. When Method 29, Method 30A, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, compare each CEMS value against the corresponding average of the paired RM values.
8.6.6 * * *
8.6.6.1 When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, outliers are identified through the determination of relative deviation (RD) of the paired RM tests. Data that do not meet the criteria should be flagged as a data quality problem. The primary reason for performing paired RM sampling is to ensure the quality of the RM data. The percent RD of paired data is the parameter used to quantify data quality. Determine RD for two paired data points as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651,
42 U.S.C. 7601, 7651k, and 7651k note.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) At the beginning and end of each sample collection period, and at least once in each unit operating hour during the collection period, the gas flow meter reading shall be recorded.
(i) All unit operating hours for which valid Hg concentration data are obtained with the primary sorbent trap monitoring system (as verified using the quality assurance procedures in appendix K to this part) shall be reported in the electronic quarterly report under § 75.84(f). For hours in which data from the primary monitoring system are invalid, the owner or operator may, in accordance with § 75.20(d), report valid Hg concentration data from: A certified redundant backup CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system; a certified non-redundant backup CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system; or an applicable reference method under § 75.22. If no quality-assured Hg concentration are available for a particular hour, the owner or operator shall report the appropriate substitute data value in accordance with § 75.39.
(k) During each RATA of a sorbent trap monitoring system, the type of sorbent material used by the traps shall be the same as for daily operation of the monitoring system. A new pair of traps shall be used for each RATA run. However, the size of the traps used for the RATA may be smaller than the traps used for daily operation of the system.
(d)* * *
(2)* * *
(ix) For non-redundant backup Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems, and for like-kind replacement Hg analyzers, the following provisions apply in addition to, or, in some cases, in lieu of, the general requirements in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(viii) of this section:
(A) When a certified sorbent trap monitoring system is brought into service as a regular non-redundant backup monitoring system, the system shall be operated according to the procedures in § 75.15 and appendix K of this part;
(B) When a regular non-redundant backup Hg CEMS or a like-kind
(C) The weekly single-point system integrity checks described in section 2.6 of appendix B of this part are required as long as a non-redundant backup Hg CEMS or like-kind replacement Hg analyzer remains in service, unless the daily calibrations of the Hg analyzer are done using a NIST-traceable source of oxidized Hg.
(j) * * *
(7) Record the gas flow meter reading (in dscm, rounded to the nearest hundreth) at the beginning and end of the collection period and at least once in each unit operating hour during the collection period.
(a) * * *
(1) A Hg concentration monitoring system (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) or a sorbent trap monitoring system (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter), to measure the mass concentration of total vapor phase Hg in the flue gas, including the elemental and oxidized forms of Hg, in micrograms per standard cubic meter (μg/scm); and
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(J) For units using sorbent trap monitoring systems, the hourly gas flow meter readings taken between the initial and final meter readings for the data collection period; and
Explain the procedures used to perform the leak checks when sorbent traps are placed in service and removed from service. Also explain the other QA procedures used to ensure system integrity and data quality, including, but not limited to, gas flow meter calibrations, verification of moisture removal, and ensuring air-tight pump operation. In addition, the QA plan must include the data acceptance and quality control criteria in section 8 of appendix K to this part. All reference meters used to calibrate the gas flow meters (e.g., wet test meters) shall be periodically recalibrated. Annual, or more frequent, recalibration is recommended. If a NIST-traceable calibration device is used as a reference flow meter, the QA plan must include a protocol for ongoing maintenance and periodic recalibration to maintain the accuracy and NIST-traceability of the calibrator.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
A robust moisture removal device or system, suitable for continuous duty (such as a Peltier cooler), shall be used to remove water vapor from the gas stream prior to entering the gas flow meter.
A gas flow meter (such as a dry gas meter, thermal mass flow meter, or other suitable measurement device) shall be used to determine the total sample volume on a dry basis, in units of standard cubic meters. The meter must be sufficiently accurate to measure the total sample volume to within 2 percent and must be calibrated at selected flow rates across the range of sample flow rates at which the sorbent trap monitoring system typically operates. The gas flow meter shall be equipped with any necessary auxiliary measurement devices (e.g., temperature sensors, pressure measurement devices) needed to correct the sample volume to standard conditions.
Perform a leak check with the sorbent traps in place. Draw a vacuum in each sample train. Adjust the vacuum in the sample train to ~15″ Hg. Using the gas flow meter, determine leak rate. The leakage rate must not exceed 4 percent of the target sampling rate. Once the leak check passes this criterion, carefully release the vacuum in the sample train then seal the sorbent trap inlet until the probe is ready for insertion into the stack or duct.
Set the initial sample flow rate at the target value from section 7.1.1 of this appendix. Record the initial gas flow meter reading, stack temperature (if needed to convert to standard conditions), meter temperatures (if needed), etc. Then, for every operating hour during the sampling period, record the date and time, the sample flow rate, the gas flow meter reading, the stack temperature (if needed), the flow meter temperatures (if needed), temperatures of heated equipment such as the vacuum lines and the probes (if heated), and the sampling system vacuum readings. Also, record the stack gas flow rate, as measured by the certified flow monitor, and the ratio of the stack gas flow rate to the sample flow rate. Adjust the sampling flow rate to maintain proportional sampling, i.e., keep the ratio of the stack gas flow rate to sample flow rate constant, to within ±25 percent of the reference ratio from the first hour of the data collection period (see section 11 of this appendix).
Obtain and record any essential operating data for the facility during the test period, e.g., the barometric pressure for correcting the sample volume measured by a dry gas meter to standard conditions. At the end of the data collection period, record the final gas flow meter reading and the final values of all other essential parameters.
9.2.1 Preliminaries. The manufacturer or supplier of the gas flow meter should perform all necessary set-up, testing, programming, etc., and should provide the end user with any necessary instructions, to ensure that the meter will give an accurate readout of dry gas volume in standard cubic meters for the particular field application.
9.2.2 Initial Calibration. Prior to its initial use, a calibration of the flow meter shall be performed. The initial calibration may be done by the manufacturer, by the equipment supplier, or by the end user. If the flow meter is volumetric in nature (e.g., a dry gas meter), the manufacturer, equipment supplier, or end user may perform a direct volumetric calibration using any gas. For a mass flow meter, the manufacturer, equipment supplier, or end user may calibrate the meter using a bottled gas mixture containing 12 ± 0.5% CO
9.2.2.1 Initial Calibration Procedures. Determine an average calibration factor (Y) for the gas flow meter, by calibrating it at three sample flow rate settings covering the range of sample flow rates at which the sorbent trap monitoring system typically operates. You may either follow the procedures in section 10.3.1 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter or the procedures in section 16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. If a dry gas meter is being calibrated, use at least five revolutions of the meter at each flow rate.
9.2.2.2 Alternative Initial Calibration Procedures. Alternatively, you may perform the initial calibration of the gas flow meter using a reference gas flow meter (RGFM). The RGFM may either be: (1) A wet test meter calibrated according to section 10.3.1 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to part 60; (2) a gas flow metering device calibrated at multiple flow rates using the procedures in section 16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to part 60; or (3) a NIST-traceable calibration device capable of measuring volumetric flow to an accuracy of 1 percent. To calibrate the gas flow meter using the RGFM, proceed as follows: While the sorbent trap monitoring system is sampling the actual stack gas or a compressed gas mixture that simulates the stack gas composition (as applicable), connect the RGFM to the discharge of the system. Care should be taken to minimize the dead volume between the sample flow meter being tested and the RGFM. Concurrently measure dry gas volume with the RGFM and the flow meter being calibrated the for a minimum of 10 minutes at each of three flow rates covering the typical range of operation of the sorbent trap monitoring system. For each 10-minute (or longer) data collection period, record the total sample volume, in units of dry standard cubic meters (dscm), measured by the RGFM and the gas flow meter being tested.
9.2.2.3 Initial Calibration Factor. Calculate an individual calibration factor Y
9.2.2.4 Initial On-Site Calibration Check. For a mass flow meter that was initially calibrated using a compressed gas mixture, an on-site calibration check shall be performed before using the flow meter to provide data for this part. While sampling stack gas, check the calibration of the flow meter at one intermediate flow rate typical of normal operation of the monitoring system. Follow the basic procedures in section 9.2.2.1 or 9.2.2.2 of this appendix. If the on-site calibration check shows that the value of Y
9.2.2.5 Ongoing Quality Assurance. Recalibrate the gas flow meter quarterly at one intermediate flow rate setting representative of normal operation of the monitoring system. Follow the basic procedures in section 9.2.2.1 or 9.2.2.2 of this appendix. If a quarterly recalibration shows that the value of Y
Analyze the sorbent trap samples following the same procedures that were used for conducting the spike recovery study. The three sections of each sorbent trap must be analyzed separately (i.e., section 1, then section 2, then section 3). Quantify the total mass of Hg for each section based on analytical system response and the calibration curve from section 10.1 of this appendix. Determine the spike recovery from sorbent trap section 3. The spike recovery must be no less than 75 percent and no greater than 125 percent. To report the final Hg mass for each trap, add together the Hg masses collected in trap sections 1 and 2.
Calculate the Hg concentration for each sorbent trap, using the following equation:
Calculate the relative deviation (RD) between the Hg concentrations measured with the paired sorbent traps:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) amends the regulations for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (refuge) that pertain to existing programs for migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing. These changes take effect with the 2007-2008 season and implement the recently completed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge. This amendment replaces current refuge regulations found at 50 CFR part 32.32 (Illinois), places the regulations at 50 CFR part 32.42 (Minnesota) to match the State listing with the location of the refuge headquarters, and cross references those regulations in 50 CFR parts 32.34 (Iowa) and 32.69 (Wisconsin).
This rule is effective September 7, 2007.
Don Hultman, (507) 452-4232; Fax (507) 452-0851.
The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (refuge) encompasses 240,000 acres in a more-or-less continuous stretch of 261 miles of Mississippi River floodplain in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. The refuge was established by Congress in 1924 to provide a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds, fish, other wildlife, and plants. The refuge is perhaps the most important corridor of habitat in the central United States due to its species diversity and abundance and is the most visited refuge in the United States with 3.7 million annual visitors. Approximately 187,000 acres of the refuge is open to all hunting, and approximately 140,000 acres of surface water is open to year-round fishing.
The development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and CCP for the refuge began with a notice of intent to prepare the EIS, which we published in the
We offered public involvement through 46 public meetings and workshops attended by 4,500 persons in 14 different communities in four States during the 4-year planning process. In addition, we held or attended 80 other meetings with the States, other agencies, interest groups, and elected officials to discuss the Draft EIS, and mailed three different planning update newsletters to up to 4,900 persons or organizations on our planning mailing list. We also issued numerous news releases at various planning milestones, and held two press conferences.
On July 11, 2006, we published a notice of availability of our Final EIS (71 FR 39125), and we accepted public comments on the Final EIS for 30 days. On August 24, 2006, the Regional Director of the Midwest Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service signed the Record of Decision that documented the selection of Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative presented in the Final EIS. We published a notice of availability of that Record of Decision on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64553).
In accordance with the Record of Decision, we prepared a CCP based on Alternative E. The CCP was approved on October 24, 2006. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997), requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to manage each refuge in a manner consistent with a completed CCP. The Final EIS and CCP are available at
This hunting and fishing rule implements the goals, objectives, and strategies spelled-out in the CCP pertaining to hunting and fishing and related uses.
The rule also reflects a fine-tuning of language in the current refuge-specific regulations for clarity and ease of enforcement, and other modest changes to modernize regulations and make them consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management. For example, this rule includes the new requirement for hunters to use nontoxic shot shells for turkey hunting, the only exemption the refuge had allowed under the nontoxic shot shell regulation at 50 CFR 32.2(k).
When all changes in the CCP are implemented in 2009, there will be 24 closed areas or sanctuaries totaling 43,683 acres, compared with the current 15 areas totaling 44,544 acres. Another 1,406 acres will be open the first 30 days of the season, closing November 1. An effective system of strategically located waterfowl closed areas on the 261-mile-long refuge is critical to the Mississippi Flyway, and allows hunting to remain compatible.
There is also a change to open water hunting regulations on 4,000 acres of Pool 11 in Grant County, Wisconsin, and a phase out of permanent hunting blinds on the only areas of the refuge they are still allowed. The Grant County area remains open to hunting, but restricts open water hunting from boats to protect large rafts of scaup and canvasback.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 authorizes the Secretary to allow uses of refuge areas including hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that such uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), and consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
The Secretary is required to prepare a CCP for each refuge and shall manage each refuge consistent with the CCP. Each CCP must identify and describe the refuge purposes; fish, wildlife, and plant populations; cultural resources; areas for administrative or visitor facilities; significant problems affecting resources and actions necessary; and opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Each CCP must also be developed through consultation with the other States, agencies, and the public, and be coordinated with applicable State conservation plans.
Each CCP is guided by the overarching requirement that refuges are to be managed to fulfill their purposes for which established and the mission of the Refuge System. In addition, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires that the Refuge System be administered to provide for the conservation of fish,
We developed the CCP for the refuge in accordance with all requirements and in accordance with the consultation and public involvement provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This includes new compatibility determinations for hunting and fishing, which are referenced and listed in Appendix E of the Final EIS. We then developed this rule to implement portions of the CCP.
In this rule, we comply with a Presidential mandate to use plain language in regulations. As examples, we use “you” to refer to the reader and “we” to refer to the Service, the word “allow” instead of “permit” when we do not require the use of a permit for an activity, and we use active voice whenever possible (i.e., “We allow hunting of upland game on designated areas” vs. “Upland game hunting in designated areas is allowed”).
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act) and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) govern the administration and public use of refuges. In addition, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C 703-711) grants authority for management of migratory birds and the closing of any areas to migratory bird hunting.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility. The MBTA enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal and non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. You can find regulations stemming from the MBTA pertaining to migratory bird hunting in 50 CFR part 20.
This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations amended hunting and sport fishing regulations that are applicable to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. We are doing this to implement the refuge CCP, better inform the general public of the regulations at the refuge, increase understanding and compliance with these regulations, and make enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition to finding these regulations in 50 CFR part 32, visitors will find them reiterated in literature distributed by each refuge and posted on signs at major access points. Visitors will also find the boundaries of closed areas or other restricted-use areas referenced in this document marked by specific signs.
This rule includes cross-references to a number of existing regulations in 50 CFR parts 27 and 32 to assist hunting and sport fishing visitors with understanding safety and other legal requirements on refuges. This redundancy is deliberate, with the intention of improving safety and compliance in our hunting and sport fishing programs.
In the June 28, 2007,
In addition, one commenter posed eight questions to the Service. Although not specifically comments on the proposed rule, the questions represent concerns on issues that the Service took seriously in the development of the CCP and takes seriously in this rulemaking. We have answered similar questions in public meetings and other forums, and we welcome the opportunity to address them here. We quote these questions verbatim and answer in turn following the comment and response section below.
We are making a change in the final regulations to correct an inadvertent omission in the proposed rule. The CCP, developed through extensive public involvement and review, states that “no hunting should occur on the refuge from March 16 to August 31 of each year, except for spring wild turkey hunting and, on the Illinois portion of the refuge, squirrel hunting.” During public review and comment periods for the EIS, there were no objections made to this provision by either the public or the States. We included this provision in the general hunting objective of the CCP to minimize potential conflicts between user groups during the peak fishing, boating, and camping period when more than two million refuge visits occur. Since most State seasons start in September or later, this change has little effect on hunting, affecting for only a short time the hunting of crow and State-listed unprotected or open-season animals. We have changed the introductions to the
We are making minor edits in this final rule to correct administrative errors or update information in the proposed rule. These corrections and one update by section are as follows: (1) In the
For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about current fish consumption advisories on the Internet at:
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Service asserts that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final determination under E.O. 12866.
a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government. A cost-benefit and full economic analysis is not required. However, a brief assessment follows to clarify the costs and benefits associated with this rule.
The purpose of this rule is to implement amended hunting and sport fishing regulations on the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge beginning with the 2007-2008 seasons. These regulations are derived from and are consistent with the CCP approved October 24, 2006, and whose environmental and socioeconomic impacts are documented in the Final EIS (available at
Costs incurred by these regulations include signing of areas, leaflet preparation, and printing to provide information to the public, and law enforcement and monitoring. However, these are regular and reoccurring functions on the refuge with or without these regulations and can be handled within normal budget and staffing levels. Therefore, we expect any costs to be minor in the short term and negligible in the long term.
These regulations will have several effects on current hunting opportunities on the refuge. Although some areas open to hunting are changed, the quality of hunting could increase, especially for waterfowl, since the refuge would likely hold more birds in more areas for longer periods of time in the fall. In addition, improvement of habitat quality from ongoing habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some game populations and positively affect the hunting experience for many. Also, the CCP calls for an increase in land acquisition over time, opening several thousand acres to all forms of public hunting. For example, in 2005, an additional 2,000 acres was open to public hunting at the Lost Mound Unit, Savanna District, due to acquisition of the former Savanna Army Depot.
We estimate that hunting visits will increase 10 percent over the 15-year life of the CCP due to overall long-term trends in hunter visits, expected improvements to the hunting experience, and a better distribution of waterfowl and, thus, hunting opportunity. We predict these regulations to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 1 below.
Table 1 shows the expected change by the end of the 15-year life of the CCP resulting from the implementation of the 2007-2008 hunting regulations compared with FY 2003 for the 19-county area on and adjacent to the refuge. We expect annual hunting visitation to increase by 10 percent resulting in 26,362 more hunter visits. Retail expenditures associated with this increased visitation total $520,399 with total economic output (based on an output multiplier of 1.23 for the 19-county region impacted by the refuge) of $642,526. An additional nine jobs with associated income of $145,343 occur along with an additional $68,909 in Federal and State tax revenue.
These regulations will have several effects on current fishing opportunities on the refuge. A minimum of approximately 140,000 acres of water will remain open to year-round fishing, a decrease of about 500 acres from existing conditions. This decrease will be due to changes in waterfowl sanctuaries where we allow no entry during the respective State waterfowl hunting season. However, effects on fall fishing in approximately 31,000 acres of waterfowl hunting closed area included in voluntary avoidance guidelines will be variable since compliance is
Overall fishing opportunities will remain abundant, and fishing will be welcome in closed areas during the peak spring, summer, early fall, and winter period. As called for in the CCP, the improvement of habitat quality from ongoing and planned habitat projects will likely result in an increase in some sport fish populations and positively affect the fishing experience for many. Increased efforts to improve water quality through work with private landowners in tributary watersheds, and more emphasis on control of aquatic invasive species, could also result in increases in sport fish populations and thus fishing success. Despite voluntary guidelines or motor restrictions that may limit fall fishing in waterfowl closed areas, we expect fishing visits to increase 5 percent based on long-term trends in angling visits, improvements in fish habitat, and additional fishing-related facilities. We predict the 2007-2008 regulations to have a corresponding increase in positive economic impact as reflected in Table 2.
Table 2 shows the expected change by the end of the 15-year CCP lifespan resulting from the implementation of the 2007-2008 fishing regulations compared with FY 2003 in the 19-county area. We expect the annual number of fishing visitors to increase by 60,696, with associated retail expenditures of $1,478,817 and total economic output of $1,811,153. We associate these expenditures and output with 24 jobs and $405,965 in job-related income. Federal and State tax revenue would increase by $194,241.
b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. This action pertains solely to the management of the Refuge System. The fishing and hunting activities located on national wildlife refuges account for approximately 1 percent of the available supply in the United States. Any small, incremental change in the supply of fishing and hunting opportunities will not measurably impact any other agency's existing programs.
c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This rule does not affect entitlement programs. There are no grants or other Federal assistance programs associated with public use on national wildlife refuges.
d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues that were not addressed in the Final EIS. This rule continues the practice of allowing recreational public use of the refuge. Many refuges in the Refuge System currently have opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on refuge lands.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule does not increase the number of recreation types allowed on the refuge but amends hunting and fishing regulations on the refuge. As a result, opportunities for hunting and fishing recreation on the refuge will remain abundant and increase over time.
Many small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait and tackle shops, etc.) may benefit from some increased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in the majority of affected counties qualify as small businesses (Table 3).
We expect that the incremental recreational opportunities will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect (benefit) on a substantial number of small entities in any given community or county. Using the estimate derived in the
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no significant employment or small business effects. This rule:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. By the end of the 15-year CCP lifespan, the additional fishing and hunting opportunities on the refuge will generate an additional $2 million in angler and hunter expenditures with an economic impact estimated at $2.5 million per year (2003 dollars). Consequently, the maximum benefit of this rule for businesses both small and large will not be sufficient to make this a major rule. The impact will be scattered across 19 counties and will most likely not be significant in any local area.
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. We do not expect this rule to affect the supply or demand for fishing and hunting opportunities in the United States and, therefore, it should not affect prices for fishing and hunting equipment and supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment. Additional refuge hunting and fishing opportunities will account for less than 0.0001 percent of the available opportunities in the United States.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending of a small number of affected anglers and hunters, approximately a maximum of $2.5 million annually in impact (economic output). Therefore, this rule will have no measurable economic effect on the wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment and travel expenditures of over $72 billion nationwide.
Since this rule applies to public use of a federally owned and managed refuge, it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule will not have significant takings implications. These regulations will affect only visitors to the refuge and describe what they can do while they are on the refuge.
As discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sections above, this rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under E.O. 13132. In preparing the CCP for the refuge, we worked closely with the four States bordering the refuge, and this rule reflects the CCP.
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. This rule clarifies established regulations and results in better understanding of the regulations by refuge visitors.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule is a modification of an existing hunting and fishing program on the refuge, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on national wildlife refuges with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose changes to the regulations. During scoping and preparation of the Final EIS, we contacted 35 Indian tribes to inform them of the process and seek their comments.
This regulation does not contain any information collection requirements other than those already approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
During preparation of the Final EIS, we completed a section 7 consultation and determined that the preferred alternative, which included hunting and fishing changes reflected in this rule, is not likely to adversely effect individuals of listed or candidate species or designated critical habitat of such species. The Service's Ecological Services Office concurred with this determination. Listed species on the refuge at the time of the determination were the Higgins eye mussel and bald eagle (the bald eagle was removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on August 9, 2007); candidate species are the Eastern massasauga and spectaclecase and sheepnose mussels. A copy of the section 7 evaluation and accompanying biological assessment is available from any of the refuge offices listed in the
Concerning the actions that are the subject of this rulemaking, we have complied with NEPA through the preparation of a Final EIS and Record of Decision which include the major hunting and fishing changes reflected in this rule. The NEPA documents are available on our Web site at
This rule is effective upon filing in the
The refuge is divided into four districts for management, administrative, and public service effectiveness and efficiency. These districts correspond to two or more Mississippi River pools created by the series of locks and dams on the river. District offices are located in Winona, Minnesota (Pools 4-6), La Crosse, Wisconsin (Pools 7-8), McGregor, Iowa (Pools 9-11), and Savanna, Illinois (Pools 12-14). If you are interested in specific information pertaining to a particular closed area, no hunting zone, managed hunt, or other feature discussed in this rule, you may contact the appropriate district office listed below:
Winona District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 51 East Fourth Street, Room 203, Winona, MN 55987; Telephone (507) 454-7351.
La Crosse District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 555 Lester Avenue, Onalaska, WI 54650; Telephone (608) 783-8405.
McGregor District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 460, McGregor, IA 52157; Telephone (563) 873-3423.
Savanna District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7071 Riverview Road, Thomson, IL 61285; Telephone (815) 273-2732.
Don Hultman, Refuge Manager, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, is the primary author of this rulemaking document.
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i.
Refer to § 32.42 Minnesota for regulations.
Refer to § 32.42 Minnesota for regulations.
1. You must possess a hunting license valid in the State in which you are hunting and be in compliance with all applicable State and Federal regulations and requirements (see § 32.2). You cannot reserve hunting areas, except at Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt Area, Pool 13, near Thomson, Illinois, in accordance with procedures established by the refuge manager.
2. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary,” we prohibit migratory bird hunting at all times and all public entry except as specified. These areas are named and located as follows:
i. Pool Slough, Pool 9, Minnesota/Iowa, 1,112 acres.
ii. Bertom Island, Pool 11, Wisconsin, 31 acres.
iii. Guttenberg Ponds, Pool 11, Iowa, 252 acres.
iv. Spring Lake, Pool 13, Illinois, 3,686 acres.
3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit migratory bird hunting at all times. We ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “no motors,” we prohibit
These “Area(s) Closed” are named and located as follows:
i. Nelson-Trevino, Pool 4, Wisconsin, 3,773 acres (no voluntary avoidance provision).
ii. Peterson Lake, Pool 4, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,111 acres (no voluntary avoidance provision).
iii. Weaver Bottoms/Lost Island, Pool 5, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 3,508 acres.
iv. Polander Lake, Pool 5A, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 1,907 acres.
v. Lake Onalaska, Pool 7, Wisconsin, 7,369 acres (voluntary avoidance on 3,356 acres until mid-November).
vi. Wisconsin Islands, Pool 8, Minnesota/Wisconsin, 6,510 acres.
vii. Harpers Slough, Pool 9, Iowa/Wisconsin, 5,209 acres.
viii. Wisconsin River Delta, Pool 10, Wisconsin, 1,406 acres (closed November 1 to end of duck season).
ix. 12-Mile Island, Pool 11, Iowa, 1,145 acres.
x. Bertom-McCartney, Pool 11, Wisconsin, 2,384 acres (no voluntary avoidance provision).
xi. Pleasant Creek, Pool 13, Iowa, 2,067 acres.
xii. Elk River, Pool 13, Iowa, 1,237 acres.
The “Area(s) Closed—No Motors” are named and located as follows:
xiii. Spring Lake, Pool 5, Wisconsin, 243 acres.
xiv. Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10, Wisconsin, 340 acres.
xv. 12-Mile Island, Pool 10, Iowa, 540 acres.
xvi. John Deere Marsh, Pool 11, Iowa, 439 acres.
xvii. Kehough Slough, Pool 12, Illinois, 343 acres.
xviii. Beaver Island, Pool 14, Iowa, 717 acres.
4. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Hunting Zone” or “No Hunting or Trapping Zone,” we prohibit migratory bird hunting at all times. You must unload and encase firearms in these areas. These areas are named and located as follows:
i. Upper Halfway Creek Marsh, Pool 7, Wisconsin, 141 acres.
ii. Hunter's Point, Pool 8, Wisconsin, 82 acres.
iii. Goose Island, Pool 8, Wisconsin, 986 acres (also no motors and voluntary avoidance as in condition A3).
iv. Sturgeon Slough, Pool 10, Wisconsin, 66 acres.
v. Goetz Island Trail, Pool 11, Iowa, 32 acres.
vi. Crooked Slough Backwater, Pool 13, Illinois, 2,467 acres.
vii. Crooked Slough Proper, Pool 13, Illinois, 192 acres.
viii. Frog Pond, Pool 13, Illinois, 64 acres.
ix. Ingersoll Learning Center, Pool 13, Illinois, 41 acres.
5. We prohibit hunting of migratory birds within 50 yards (45 m) of the Great River Trail at Thomson Prairie, within 150 yards (135 m) of the Great River Trail at Mesquaki Lake, and within 400 yards (360 m) of the Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt area, all in or near Pool 13, Illinois.
6. You may retrieve dead or wounded game from areas posted “Area Closed,” “No Hunting Zone,” and “No Hunting or Trapping Zone” provided you do not take a loaded gun into the area and do not attempt to chase birds from the area. You may not use a motor to aid in the retrieval of game in areas posted “Area Closed—No Motors.” You may not retrieve birds or other game from areas posted “No Entry—Sanctuary.”
7. You may not engage in open-water waterfowl hunting in Pool 11, approximate river miles 586-592, Grant County, Wisconsin as marked with signs and as shown on refuge maps. Open-water hunting regulations and definitions that apply for Wisconsin outside of Grant County will apply in this area.
8. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field (see § 32.2(k)).
9. We allow the use of dogs for hunting in accordance with State regulations. When dogs are not actively engaged in authorized hunting activities, the following conditions apply:
i. We prohibit dogs disturbing or endangering wildlife or people while on the refuge.
ii. All dogs while on the refuge must be under the control of their owners/handlers at all times or on a leash.
iii. We prohibit allowing dogs to roam.
iv. All dogs must be on a leash when on hiking trails, or other areas so posted.
v. We allow working a dog in refuge waters by tossing a retrieval dummy or other object for out-and-back exercise.
vi. Owners/handlers of dogs are responsible for disposal of dog droppings on refuge public use concentration areas such as trails, sandbars, and boat landings.
vii. We prohibit field trials and commercial/professional dog training.
10. We prohibit the construction of permanent hunting blinds (see § 27.92 of this chapter). You may use natural material for seasonal blinds, with restrictions. You may gather grasses and marsh vegetation from the refuge for blind-building materials; however, Phragmites (giant cane) may not be cut or brought onto the refuge. You may not gather, bring onto the refuge, or use for blind building tree(s) or other plant parts, including dead wood on the ground, greater than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. We prohibit constructing hunting blinds from rocks placed for shoreline protection (rip rap). You may leave only seasonal blinds made entirely of natural vegetation and biodegradable twines on the refuge. We consider all such blinds public property and open to use by any person on a first-come-first-served basis. You may use manmade material for temporary blinds, with restrictions. You may not use lumber, pipe, posts, or timbers greater than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. At the end of each day's hunt, you must remove all manmade blind materials, including boat blinds. Any blinds containing manmade materials left on the refuge are subject to immediate removal and disposal. Manmade materials include, but are not limited to, wooden pallets, metal fence posts, wire, nails, staples, netting, or tarps (see §§ 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter).
11. We will phase out the construction and use of permanent hunting blinds for waterfowl hunting within the Savanna District of the refuge. We will no longer allow permanent blinds on the refuge in Pool 12 beginning with the 2007-2008 waterfowl hunting season, Pool 14 after the 2007-2008 season, and Pool 13 after the 2008-2009 season. The following regulations apply for phase out of permanent hunting blinds:
i. All permanent blinds must have the current name, address, and telephone number of the blind owner, posted no smaller than 3″ x 5″ (7.5 cm x 12.5 cm) inside the blind.
ii. The blind's owner must remove from the refuge all blind materials, including old blind materials located within 100 yards (90 m) of the blind, within 30 days of the end of the waterfowl hunting season.
iii. After the phase-out year of permanent blinds in each pool, refuge hunting blind regulations in Condition A10 will apply, except that we require a 200-yard (180-m) spacing distance between hunting parties on the Illinois portions of the refuge in Pools 12, 13, and 14.
12. You may set up hunting equipment the day of the hunt but must remove it at the end of each day. You may place and leave hunting equipment and decoys on the refuge only from 1 hour before the start of legal shooting hours until
13. We prohibit the cutting, removing, or damaging of any tree or other vegetation except as allowed for blinds in Condition A10 or by written permit. You may not clear vegetation for shooting lanes or limb trees for trees stands (see § 27.51 of this chapter).
14. We prohibit camping during waterfowl hunting seasons within areas posted “No Entry—Sanctuary,” “Area Closed,” “Area Closed—No Motors,” and “No Hunting Zone” or on any sites not clearly visible from the main commercial navigation channel of the Mississippi River. We define camping as erecting a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, or mooring or anchoring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy, or occupying or leaving personal property, including boats or other craft, at a site anytime between the hours of 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. on any given day. Where we allow camping, you must occupy claimed campsites each night.
15. We prohibit the building or use of warming fires while hunting (see § 27.95 of this chapter). We only allow campfires in conjunction with camping, day-use activities on beaches, or on the ice while ice fishing using only dead wood on the ground, or materials brought onto the refuge such as charcoal or firewood. You must remove any unused firewood brought onto the refuge upon departure due to threat of invasive insects.
16. We prohibit all vehicle use on or across refuge lands at any time except on designated routes of travel or on the ice over navigable waters accessed from boat landings. We prohibit parking beyond vehicle control barriers or on grass or other vegetation. You may not park or operate vehicles in a manner that obstructs or impedes any road, trail, fire lane, boat ramp, access gate, or other facility or in a manner that creates a safety hazard or endangers any person, property, or environmental feature. We may impound any vehicle left parked in violation at the owner's expense (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
17. We require that you keep all refuge lands clean during your period of use or occupancy. At all times you must keep all refuse, trash, and litter contained in bags or other suitable containers and not left scattered on the ground or in the water. You must remove all personal property, refuse, trash, and litter immediately upon vacating a site. We consider animal carcasses and spent shells to be litter (see § 27.94 of this chapter).
1. Condition A1 applies.
2. We prohibit the carrying, possessing, or discharging of firearms (including dog training pistols and dummy launchers), air guns, or any other weapons on the refuge, unless you are a licensed hunter or trapper engaged in authorized activities during established seasons, in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. We prohibit target practice on the refuge (see §§ 27.42 and 27.43 of this chapter).
3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary,” we prohibit entry and upland game hunting at all times. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary October 1 to end of state duck hunting season,” we allow upland game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until upland game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except we allow spring turkey hunting during State seasons. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A2.
4. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors,” we allow upland game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until upland game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first, except we allow spring turkey hunting during State seasons. We ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit the use of motors on watercraft from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A3.
5. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Hunting Zone” or “No Hunting or Trapping Zone,” we prohibit upland game hunting at all times. You must unload and encase firearms in these areas. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A4.
6. We prohibit hunting of upland game within 50 yards (45 m) of the Great River Trail at Thomson Prairie, within 150 yards (135 m) of the Great River Trail at Mesquaki Lake, and within 400 yards (360 m) of the Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt area, all in or near Pool 13, Illinois.
7. You may only use or possess approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field, including shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)).
8. We prohibit the shining of a light to locate any animal on the refuge except at the point of kill for species specified in respective State night or artificial light hunting regulations (see § 27.73 of this chapter). You may use lights to find your way. We prohibit the distribution of bait or feed, the hunting over bait or feed, and the use or possession of any drug on any arrow for bow hunting (see § 32.2(g) and (h)). You must comply with all other hunt method regulations of the respective State on the refuge.
9. Conditions A6, A9, A10, and A12 through A17 apply.
1. Conditions A1 and B2 apply.
2. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary,” we prohibit entry and big game hunting at all times. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Entry—Sanctuary October 1 to end of state duck hunting season,” we allow big game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until big game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A2.
3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors” we allow big game hunting beginning the day after the respective State duck hunting season until big game season closure or March 15, whichever comes first. We ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit the use of motors on watercraft from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. These areas are described more fully in Condition A3.
4. In areas posted and shown on maps as “No Hunting Zone” or “No Hunting or Trapping Zone,” we prohibit big game hunting at all times. You must unload and encase firearms in these
5. We prohibit hunting of big game within 50 yards (45 m) of the Great River Trail at Thomson Prairie, within 150 yards (135 m) of the Great River Trail at Mesquaki Lake, and within 400 yards (360 m) of the Potter's Marsh Managed Hunt area, all in or near Pool 13, Illinois.
6. Conditions A6, A9, A10, A12 through A17, and B7 apply.
1. In the Bertrom Island “No Entry—Sanctuary” area, Pool 11, Wisconsin we prohibit entry and fishing at all times.
2. In the Spring Lake “Area Closed” area, Pool 13, Illinois, we prohibit fishing from October 1 until the day after the close of the State duck hunting season.
3. In areas posted and shown on maps as “Area Closed” and “Area Closed—No Motors,” we allow fishing; however, we ask that you practice voluntary avoidance of these areas by any means or for any purpose from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. In areas also marked “Area Closed—No Motors,” we prohibit the use of motors on watercraft from October 15 to the end of the respective State duck season. We describe these areas more fully in Condition A3.
4. On Mertes Slough, Pool 6, Wisconsin, we allow only hand-powered boats or boats with electric motors.
5. For the purpose of determining length limits, slot limits, and daily creel limits, the impounded areas of Spring Lake, Duckfoot Marsh, and Pleasant Creek in Pool 13, Illinois, are part of the Mississippi River site-specific State regulations.
6. Conditions A10, and A13 through A17 apply.
Refer to § 32.42 Minnesota for regulations.